Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Secures Full Return of Client’s $270,000 Deposit Despite Buyer’s Attempts to Be Rejected at the Board Meeting by Wearing a MAGA Hat to the Interview and Asking About Entertaining Guests Late at Night.
In Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.’s latest victory, the sellers agreed to return the client’s full $270,000 deposit after the firm filed a lawsuit demonstrating that the sellers had no contractual basis to retain the funds once the cooperative board denied consent to the purchase.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. was retained after the sellers refused to authorize the release of the deposit, despite the contract’s clear provisions requiring the Escrowee to refund the deposit if the Board did not grant approval. The client had fulfilled all contractual obligations and made extraordinary efforts to comply with the Board’s interview process, even traveling from Florida to New York City multiple times at significant personal expense. His interview date and time were changed several times at the last minute. When he finally received a last minute call to be interviewed, we were lucky we had encouraged him to stay in New York versus his primary residence in Florida. He was called into the interview with less than 8 hours’ notice and only two board members attended.
Nevertheless, the Board denied the application following a series of unreasonable scheduling changes and incomplete attendance at the interview.
Thus, the board made it clear it did not want this buyer in their building. And of course, the board’s actions regarding his necessary alterations caused our contract-vendee client to no longer want to purchase without such approval.
In addition, even before the interview the Board denied our client’s alteration requests which were essential to his living in the apartment. At the same time, our client did not want to lose his deposit, so he was willing to close if approved by the board. And he stood a strong chance of approval, as his financials more than qualified him – not just for this cooperative, but for many far more high-end cooperatives. We coached our client that he had to attend the interview, no matter how difficult the board made it for him. We kept him prepared at all hours for several days to ensure he did not default under the contract. However, our client’s primary goal was to be rejected by the board lawfully, and we provided suggestions regarding lawful questions and conduct that might discourage the board of directors from providing him with an acceptance. We emphasized that he could not act in bad faith, and had to answer every question honestly, but, for example, he was free to bring up social uses of the apartment. At the interview, he wore a MAGA hat, remained unshaven, and did asked about entertaining guests in his unit. As advised, during his interview he remained careful not to push the boundaries so far that he could be deemed to have acted in bad faith. He accurately gambled that the board would not be Donald Trump supporters and would not like questions about how late he could entertain guests.
Ultimately, our coaching and his gamble worked. The board rejected him within two hours after the interview and provided no reasons for the decision. Although his questions and attire may not be well-received by some board members, they would be welcomed by others, and we ensured that everything remained within the limits of the law and in full compliance with the contract.
Following the Board’s denial, the client properly exercised his right to cancel the contract and sought the return of his deposit. The sellers, however, refused to return the deposit stating that they learned of our client’s alleged bad faith and antics and directed the Escrowee to withhold the funds, in direct violation of the contract.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. swiftly filed a complaint against the sellers, outlining the Board’s denial, the client’s timely cancellation, and the sellers’ breach of their contractual duties. The complaint made clear that the sellers had no legal or equitable claim to the deposit.
Shortly after the action was filed, the sellers’ attorney contacted Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. to resolve the dispute. The firm secured a settlement providing the client with the full return of his $270,000 deposit, avoiding prolonged litigation.
Through strategic advocacy centered on protecting its client’s interests, Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. secured a complete recovery. This swift resolution saved the client significant time and resources, delivering a prompt and efficient victory.
Adam Leitman Bailey, Karen Chau, and Nurie Metodieva of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., represented the client in this litigation.