3 Day Attorney Review

[Bill Keegan]

Originally Posted by shopalcholic

Attorney review starts once the contract is executed fully by both parties. Any changes afterwards would be made through the attys. Either party can back out of a contract within the first three days.

Verbal contracts are not enforciable in NJ, verbal means nothing.. That is why when you put a verbal offer and someone presents a written offer the written offer takes precedence.

What I would suggest is to call your atty. and make him aware of what happened and let him handle it from there. Good luck....

I respectufully suggest that people stop posting things as fact unless you know them to be true. If you THINK somethihng is the case, say I THINK this is the case.

First VERBAL CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF REAL ESTATE ARE ENFORCEABLE IN NJ. They are rarely if everused, because they are difficult to prove, especially if there is any contention. But they are very legal. Totally enforceable.

Once the contraqct is "in attorney review" there is no such thing as a three day time limit. Attorney review can take one day, three days, or three weeks. Review is complete when both attorneys agree that all matters are settled and review is complete. The three day period refers to the amount of time a principal has to get an attorney to review the contract in the first place. The way contracts are structured in NJ, a contract is deemed acceptable and in place if neither party's attorney states that it is unaccpetable within three days of the contract being executed. Your attorney can, and usually does, void, or deem unacceptable, the contract the moment it hits his desk. The attorneys then work thorugh the legal protections until both are satisfied that their clients legal rights are protected.

I appreciate that people here are trying to help, and that they believe the things they post to be true, but you relly need to be careful, as others arre using this advice & information to make decisions.

[shopalcholic]

Originally Posted by Bill Keegan

I respectufully suggest that people stop posting things as fact unless you know them to be true. If you THINK somethihng is the case, say I THINK this is the case.

First VERBAL CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF REAL ESTATE ARE ENFORCEABLE IN NJ. They are rarely if everused, because they are difficult to prove, especially if there is any contention. But they are very legal. Totally enforceable.

Once the contraqct is "in attorney review" there is no such thing as a three day time limit. Attorney review can take one day, three days, or three weeks. Review is complete when both attorneys agree that all matters are settled and review is complete. The three day period refers to the amount of time a principal has to get an attorney to review the contract in the first place. The way contracts are structured in NJ, a contract is deemed acceptable and in place if neither party's attorney states that it is unaccpetable within three days of the contract being executed. Your attorney can, and usually does, void, or deem unacceptable, the contract the moment it hits his desk. The attorneys then work thorugh the legal protections until both are satisfied that their clients legal rights are protected.

I appreciate that people here are trying to help, and that they believe the things they post to be true, but you relly need to be careful, as others arre using this advice & information to make decisions.

That is why I suggested she contact her lawyer asap to get the correct information.

[whichcomesfirst]

here is my question. i just went thru this made an offer on a small house in south jersey sellers accepted contracts signed then came three day attorney review NOT the inspection that happened after three day attorney review. why is that!!
there were things wrong with the house and i had a clause in my contract stating i could cancel for a cracked tile and the sellers signed ok on that BUT i want to know why the inspection isn't done first. does anyone have that answer. the attorney just said thats the way things are done here

[clevedark]

You have the right to cancel the contract over a cracked tile and you're worried about not getting your inspection done the day after you put in your offer?

Oy vey, next you'll want someone to buy the house for you and let you live in it for free.

[Bill Keegan]

Originally Posted by whichcomesfirst

here is my question. i just went thru this made an offer on a small house in south jersey sellers accepted contracts signed then came three day attorney review NOT the inspection that happened after three day attorney review. why is that!!
there were things wrong with the house and i had a clause in my contract stating i could cancel for a cracked tile and the sellers signed ok on that BUT i want to know why the inspection isn't done first. does anyone have that answer. the attorney just said thats the way things are done here

Because the attorney for the buyer OR the seller may want to amend the standard contract for some reason. An attorney might want to change the way inspection issues are handled. If, for instance, the seller was marketing a house that had all the original windows, from 1927, and made the buyer fully aware of that fact, the seller and their attorney might want to make sure the contract allowed you to do your inspections and gave you the right to negotiat or terminate for most issues, but stipulated that you could not cancel the contract or get a credit when your inspector reported on the inefficiency of those 1927 windows. Or the buyer, knowing that mortgage approvals are taking a longer time recently because of new rules regarding appraisals, might want to have his attorney stipulate an extended period of time to get the mortgage approval. If those legal issues can't be dealt with, then there is no point in spending the money on an inspection.

[Obrero]

Originally Posted by whichcomesfirst

here is my question. i just went thru this made an offer on a small house in south jersey sellers accepted contracts signed then came three day attorney review NOT the inspection that happened after three day attorney review. why is that!!
there were things wrong with the house and i had a clause in my contract stating i could cancel for a cracked tile and the sellers signed ok on that BUT i want to know why the inspection isn't done first. does anyone have that answer. the attorney just said thats the way things are done here

Why on earth would you want to pay for an inspection on a house you don't have a contract on?

[clevedark]

Yes, that was my second thought.

[MaverickDD]

Originally Posted by Bill Keegan

...First VERBAL CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF REAL ESTATE ARE ENFORCEABLE IN NJ. They are rarely if everused, because they are difficult to prove, especially if there is any contention. But they are very legal. Totally enforceable... I appreciate that people here are trying to help, and that they believe the things they post to be true, but you relly need to be careful, as others arre using this advice & information to make decisions.

Bill, I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the Statute of Frauds require contracts for over $500 to be in writing? More so, doesn't the Statute of Frauds require contracts for the transfer of land to be in writing? (Back in my college and graduate school days my professors referred to this as "The Four Corners Rule.")

So in essence, doesn't this make verbal contracts for the sale of real estate unenforceable? I'm sure there are limited exceptions, but for the majority of cases all the "defendant" need do is say, "There is no contract and my defense is the Statute of Frauds. Show me the contract!" Cased closed, no?

My intent is not to be a devil's advocate here. You're telling me something contrary to the way I've always thought it to be. If I'm wrong, I want to be corrected. Can you enlighten me further?

[Bill Keegan]

Originally Posted by MaverickDD

Bill, I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the Statute of Frauds require contracts for over $500 to be in writing? More so, doesn't the Statute of Frauds require contracts for the transfer of land to be in writing? (Back in my college and graduate school days my professors referred to this as "The Four Corners Rule.")

So in essence, doesn't this make verbal contracts for the sale of real estate unenforceable? I'm sure there are limited exceptions, but for the majority of cases all the "defendant" need do is say, "There is no contract and my defense is the Statute of Frauds. Show me the contract!" Cased closed, no?

My intent is not to be a devil's advocate here. You're telling me something contrary to the way I've always thought it to be. If I'm wrong, I want to be corrected. Can you enlighten me further?

I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm happy to share with you the info that was given to me by a lawyer that is well known and respected in my area.

In Alampi v. Pegasus Group, L.L.C., N.J.Super.A.D.,2008. (2008), The Superior Court, Appellate Division stated in dicta "Plaintiff argues the judge erred in finding the transaction in question was a realestate transaction barred by the Statute of Frauds,N.J.S.A. 25:1-13. We disagree.

Before amendments to the Statute of Frauds, L. 1995, c. 360, the law required an agreement relating to transferring or holding an interest in real estate to be in writing. In 1996, the Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. 25:1-13, which permits enforcement of an oral agreement relating to transferring or holding interest in land. The statute provides:
An agreement to transfer an interest in real estate or to hold an interest in real estate for the benefit of another shall not be enforceable unless:
a. a description of the real estate sufficient to identify it, the nature of the interest to be transferred, the existence of the agreement, and the identity of the transferor and transferee are established in a writing signed by or on behalf of the party against whom enforcement is sought; or
b. a description of the real estate sufficient to identify it, the nature of the interest to be transferred, the existence of the agreement and the identity of the transferor and the transferee are proved by clear and convincing evidence. "

It appears that an Oral Agreement to exchange interest in Real Estate will be deemed a valid contract assuming the existence of the agreement and the identities of the parties can be proved by clear and convincing evidence.


In In re Estate of Yates 368 N.J.Super. 226 (2004), an Oral Contract for the sale of Real Estate was upheld by the Superior Court, Appellate Division, again citing N.J.S.A. 25:1-13 and stating that the contract was valid because: Statute of frauds did not prevent purchasers or real property from enforcing oral agreement to sell the property; vendor admitted the oral contract without offering a defense based on the statute of frauds, resulting in waiver of the statute's protection.

I believe the links will get you to the cited cases. If that doesn't work, and you want the text, let me know. I think I have them in PDF format. If I can still find them.