NOTHING LIKE A CLIENT'S LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION

It certainly is satisfying when you secure the result that your client hired you for. It is even more rewarding when the client appreciates and recognizes your efforts.

I recently and successfully handled two real estate litigation matters for Mr. Lewis Kaye and his wife Marilyn, who made their mark in New York's real estate industry. 

Below is a letter from Mr. Kaye that I would like to share with you. Our effort meant a lot to both of them and I was most pleased to be of assistance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Whom It May Concern:

After a long and successful career in real estate, my wife and I decided it was time to consider semi-retirement, However, before we even had a chance to decide which warm locale to call our home we were faced with two daunting legal matters that required immediate resolution.

The first involved a long-time friend and business partner of mine who, unbeknownst to me, had been embezzling funds from our most recent real estate ventures. Unfortunately, uncovering his fraudulent activities, retaking control of the properties and finally negotiating a successful sale was only the first skirmish in a long and expensive battle. Despite irrefutable proof of his illicit activities, my former partner had the gall to sue me for several hundreds of thousands of dollars; claiming he was entitled to a share of the proceeds.

The second involved my minority position in a limited liability company which owned a leasehold in a Manhattan piece of property. My wife and I were being frozen  out of the management of the property and could not get the minority partners to even return our calls.

SO MUCH FOR RETIREMENT!

Several friends and business associates suggested retaining Mario to assist us in handling both matters; to say that he handled both in an excellent fashion would be an understatement of epic proportion. Beyond his intelligence and incredible work ethic, his most impressive quality from my perspective is how involved he became with our situation. It was almost as of he was the one with the problem, During our initial meeting Mario mentioned that most of his clients become his friends, and my wife and I are both proud and grateful to share this sentiment.

As a result of his efforts, the first lawsuit brought by my former partner was withdrawn without our having to pay him anything and in respect to our minority interest in the leasehold, we went from not even having our calls returned to receiving a very substantial suin-

Fabulous results from a phenomenal attorney and new friend. I recommend him highly.

  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have a Happy and Healthy Holiday Season! Sincerely, Mario Biaggi Jr

$2,600,000.00 JUDGMENT FOR DEFAULT ON REAL ESTATE CONTRACT

My office recently represented a seller of commercial property. The purchase price was $26,000,000.00 and the contract of sale required a 10% down payment of $2,600,000.00.

The contract included a liquidated damages clause commonly used in real estate contracts which provided for a predetermined sum to be paid to the seller if the purchaser fails to perform as promised.

Liquidated damage clauses provide predictability and allow the parties to balance the cost of anticipated performance against the act of a breach. The clause serves as a source of limited insurance for both parties. For purchasers, a liquidated damage clause limits theirs loss if they default. For sellers, it provides a preset amount, usually the purchaser's down payment deposit.

There was also a due diligence provision in the contract which gave the purchaser thirty days from the signing of the contract to terminate the contract. Under the provision, the purchaser could terminate anytime for any reason within thirty days of the signing of the contract and have his down payment returned to him without penalty.

The problem for the purchaser was that the down payment came from two different sources. One of the sources tendered a $840,000 check which cleared the bank. The other $1,760,000 check bounced twice. The first time it bounced due to insufficient funds. The second time it bounced due to the purchaser's stop payment order.

Prior to the expiration of the thirty days, the purchaser terminated the contract, citing the due diligence provisions of the contract, and requested the return of the down payment. The purchaser claimed the right to terminate the contract for any reason without penalty because the thirty day due diligence period had not yet expired as of the date of the purchaser's termination notice.

The problem for the purchaser was that in order to invoke the provision of the contract permitting thirty days for due diligence and thus cancel the contract without penalty, the purchaser must first have tendered performance, i.e. successfully made the down payment. Unfortunately for the purchaser, the purchaser had not done so.

Before the purchaser submitted the notice to terminate, the purchaser offered to make good on the $1,760,000 that failed to clear my firm's escrow account. The firm strategically decided to refuse this overture which enabled the seller, after court intervention and motion practice, to obtain a judgment against the purchaser for $2.6 million, collect the $840,000 placed in the escrow account at the contract signing and still be able to sell its property.

Had the seller accepted the $1,760,000, the purchaser would simply have rescinded the contract within the thirty day due diligence period, and been entitled to the return of the entire 10% deposit, as seller's acceptance would have constituted a waiver of the purchaser's prior breaches. Needless to say our client was pretty happy as it retained the property plus the deposited money.

Sincerely,

Mario Biaggi Jr.