Thank You MCL and a Few Follow-Up Questions

While we may have wished for a more graceful delivery, the fact is it was pretty clear that the VUE Charlotte, in my reading of Friday’s post, expects that people who have the means to close need to do so as per the case that was posted. I am not a lawyer, and have not discussed the case at length with our friend, Larry the Lawyer, but it was pretty clear that if you have the means to close, the law as per that case says you should. Anyone who is a lawyer reading the blog can comment, but for the folks who are not in that profession, this is how I interpreted it. So we can debate all day about appraisals, the economic collapse, some poor customer service treatment, and so on, the fact is a contract was signed and MCL has the right to enforce it.

So from my view, I look at this today and say, if I have the means to close, then I had better do so if I want to stay within the law.

What is still outstanding, and needs clarity for many of our readers, is what happens if we simply don’t have the means to close. There are 3 options I have heard for this.

Option one is that MCL can help and put you in a smaller unit. I have heard rumors that this option has been offered but nothing concrete. It would be nice to receive clarification. A follow-up question I would have on this option would be at what price…would it be at the price the smaller unit was back when I bought; would it be the current price; or would it be something in between?

The second option I have heard, and I guess this option is available whether you have the means to close or not, is that MCL, although it is forbidden in the contract, will allow you to assign the contract to someone else. This was one of the first signs to me that there was some give and take going on with MCL. If this is still the case it wouldn’t hurt to clarify it along with the other questions posed in this post.

The final option, which has been discussed in various posts on this blog, is to default and forfeit your deposit and perhaps be susceptible to further damages. While I have reports that verbally MCL has said you will forfeit your deposit and be at risk for no more, as we all know, that really is meaningless since the contract is what governs the transaction.

So my ask of MCL is this. I understand, and thank you, for pointing out to me and our readers that by law if I have the means to close and don’t, then I am opening myself to a lawsuit. I get that and accept that. If I built a building and then people who had the means to close didn’t do so, I would pursue my legal options to get them to do so just like you apparently will. I would especially do so in a market that right now seems to be a buyers’ and not a sellers’ market.

 But what about the scenario if I legitimately can’t? (presumably there would be some means to prove this) I know the contract is not contingent on financing. However, if I legitimately don’t have the means to close, will you use legal means to pursue damages beyond the deposit? If so, how would you in round numbers calculate what those damages are? And if no, you don’t plan on pursuing damages, then will you provide a written release (since verbal obligations are not enforceable)?

Answering the above would be very helpful to all our readers and would move posts into more productive areas. Thank you.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s