Search Site
Menu
Appellate Division Case Demonstrates Importance of Carefully Negotiated Escrow Agreements

Real estate transactions involving commercial and residential properties frequently employ the use of escrow agreements to address potential environmental issues.  This practice is widespread in New Jersey and it permits properties that may have environmental issues to go to closing without first accomplishing a cleanup.  This practice is good for the buyer, good for the seller, and, in general, good for the community because it is one way to reduce the warehousing of blight and dormant properties.

These escrow agreements are often used in cases where contamination is determined to exist following a Phase I or Phase II environmental assessments.  In New Jersey, we frequently refer to pre-purchase environmental investigations as a preliminary assessment (“PA”) and a site investigation (“SI”), but for the purpose of this discussion these concepts are the effectively the same.  Both assessments are pre-purchase investigations to determine the likelihood that an environmental issue will have to be addressed post-closing.

Buyers and sellers must be very careful when they are drafting the language for these escrow agreements.  Escrow agreements are nothing more or less than contracts and they will be interpreted by a reviewing court in the same manner that contracts are interpreted.   In other words, a court will not impose obligations on either party that were not contained or clearly anticipated in the contract.  Therefore, these agreements must be very clearly written.

The need for drafting exactness was discussed in the recent Appellate Division decision of Moretran Realty, LLC v. Baldev Patel & Son, LLC, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub LEXIS 2121 (App. Div. Feb. 17, 2017).  This case involved a real estate transaction concerning a property that seemed to have numerous potential environmental issues.  However, the escrow agreement applied only to two underground tanks that were identified with specificity, and some other contamination that may have been coming from a nearby U-Haul facility.  The agreement provided that the escrow  funds were to be released in either six months or upon U-Haul’s acceptance of cleanup cost responsibility, if that acceptance took place sooner.

As it turned out, this language worked well for the seller.  U-Haul never accepted responsibility and the two identified tanks did not require remediation.   At the conclusion of the six months, the purchaser refused to allow the escrow proceeds to be released to the seller because there were seemingly legitimate concerns about other potential contamination, none of which had anything to do with the escrow agreement.

Not surprisingly, the Appellate Division held that the funds had to be returned to the seller based on a clear reading of the escrow agreement.  Conceivably, the purchaser might have to pay for cleanup costs that more fairly should have been paid by the seller, but the narrow language of the agreed to escrow agreement controlled.  An expensive but good lesson for all of us.

Real estate transactions can be prolonged and costly, sometimes prompting parties to take shortcuts to get to closing.  However, if an environmental escrow needs to be formed, much care must be taken in drafting the agreement.  The purchaser is generally the one looking for post closure protection.  The fundamental questions that need to be asked are: Is the agreement broad enough to anticipate environmental problems that may arise?  Is the term of the agreement long enough to give time for these problems to be revealed and/or resolved?  Is the escrow adequately funded?

Undeniably, parties can get testy during contract negotiations and pressure to reach a signed contract normally exists.   No matter what, the environmental escrow agreement must be carefully tailored, because a reviewing court will not give you a better deal than the one you reached during contract discussions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Our Attorneys

Recent Twitter Posts

  • New Jersey Legislature Passes National Precedent Setting Environmental Justice Bill. https://t.co/P8ybU2UrtD
    4 weeks ago
  • New Jersey files 12 new environmental justice lawsuits. https://t.co/jYo1yCwTOa
    4 weeks ago
  • Plans Underway for Building Offshore Wind Farms Along the New Jersey Coast. https://t.co/S4CDX5DMS0
    2 months ago
  • Energy companies cancel construction of Atlantic Coast Pipeline. https://t.co/aDYHr4nhal
    3 months ago

Recent Blog Posts

Lead Exposure and Frivolous Litigation

Owners of older residential properties are likely familiar with the legal requirement to provide warnings concerning the existence of lead. Lead exposure, particularly amongst children, can result in severe, even
Read More
Lead Exposure and Frivolous Litigation

New Jersey Supreme Court rules the PLA does not preempt CFA claims by consumers

Now more than ever, consumer protection is important. As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, we see new products on our shelves, promising safe disinfection for hands and surfaces as
Read More
New Jersey Supreme Court rules the PLA does not preempt CFA claims by consumers

Notices and Appellate Review of a CAFRA Permit

In JSTAR, LLC v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, et al., Docket No. A-1745-18T1, the Appellate Division in an unpublished decision revisited the issues of notice and a review
Read More
Notices and Appellate Review of a CAFRA Permit

Preemption Isn’t Always the Answer: The Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County Law Division highlights the necessary harmony between State legislation and municipal land use ordinances

On November 20, 2019, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County Law Division, issued an opinion in the matter captioned Lakeview Memorial Park Association v. Burlington County Construction Board
Read More
Preemption Isn’t Always the Answer: The Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County Law Division highlights the necessary harmony between State legislation and municipal land use ordinances

In the media

  • Gulf Coast Town Center facing foreclosure

    Naples Daily News, September 16, 2015

    Wells Fargo filed a lawsuit Sept. 8 against an affiliate of CBL & Associates, the owners of the decadeold, 1.2 million-square-foot mall in south Fort Myers for a $190.9 million unpaid loan. The center has 94 stores on 204 acres, with such anchors as Super Target, Belk, Best Buy, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Marshalls and Costco...

    Read More
  • Town liable for private company's leaking underground tanks, court rules

    NJ.com Jul 26, 2017

    CRANFORD -- A couple that owned a businesses in town and became sick from leaking underground tanks owned by an adjacent business can sue the township for damages because the tanks were partially ...

    Read More
  • Dark Waters: How a Class Action Catapulted NJ to Forefront of 'Forever Chemicals' Battle

    NJ Law Journal Jan 09, 2020

    As property owners become increasingly aware of PFAS contamination, and as individuals exposed to PFAS learn of the health risks associated with exposure, liability will likely affect entire supply chains.

    Read More
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
Contact Our Firm

Quick Contact Form