Lawwly

Barber v. Jacobs

Connecticut Court of Appeals

753 A.2d 430 (2000)

Relevant factsFree

Barber (plaintiff) agreed to buy property from the Jacobs (defendants), paying a $327,000 deposit under a contract with a mortgage contingency clause. Barber applied for and initially got informal approval from one bank, but the bank withdrew approval after Barber's attorney discovered the property violated wetlands regulations — a serious enough problem that the attorney reasonably believed no other lender would approve the loan either. The Jacobs refused to return the deposit, and Barber filed an interpleader action. The trial court found Barber had made reasonable efforts to secure financing even though he applied to only one bank.

IssueFree

Whether a mortgage contingency clause requiring the buyer to make reasonable efforts to secure a suitable mortgage requires the buyer to apply to more than one bank where doing so would be futile.

Unlock the full brief

Free accounts read 20 full briefs. No card required.

Related cases