8355 East Hartford Drive, Suite 200
Scottsdale, Arizona 85255
(480) 483-9600 Phone
(480) 483-3215 Fax
  • FIRM
    • Firm Culture
    • Community Involvement
    • Diversity
    • Contact Us
  • PROFESSIONALS
    • Kurt M. Brueckner
    • Larry J. Crown
    • David A. Fitzgerald
    • Zachary D. Mastro
    • Elan S. Mizrahi
    • Bradley S. Shelts
    • Andrew C. Spitler
    • Jon A. Titus
    • Joshua P. Weiss
    • Casey O. Miller
  • PRACTICES
    • Business and Commercial
    • Real Estate and Construction
    • Litigation and Appeals
    • Banking and Finance
    • Estate Planning and Probate
    • Intellectual Property and Technology Law
  • NEWS
  • ARTICLES

Liquidated Damages Clauses in Real Estate Agreements

December 22, 2016
by Jon A. Titus
Comments are off

head-titus3In January of 2016, Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals rendered its opinion in Dobson Bay Club II DD v. La Sonrisa de Siena.  In Dobson Bay, the Court reviewed the imposition of a late fee on a commercial loan transaction.  The Court likened its analysis of the late fee at issue to that of a liquidated damages clause in holding the fee to be unenforceable as a penalty.

There is a liquidated damages earnest money provision in almost every real estate purchase and sale agreement in Arizona including the Residential Resale Agreement form from the Arizona Association of Realtors.  Liquidated damages clauses are common in commercial contracts of all kinds because they provide certainty in the event one party backs out of its agreement.

The Dobson Bay Court created uncertainty when it wrote “[w]hether a liquidated damages provision is enforceable depends upon the particular circumstances of each case.”  The Court went on to say that “the touchstone of a liquidated damages clause is reasonableness.”  It further wrote that the determination of whether a liquidated damages clause is enforceable or unenforceable as a penalty depends upon two factors: (i) the anticipated or actual loss caused by the breach and (ii) the difficulties of proof of loss.

Not surprisingly, confusion has ensued in the aftermath of the Dobson Bay decision.  My colleagues, Larry Crown, Jeff Harris and I represented a party seeking to enforce a liquidated damages clause in an extensive evidentiary hearing in Maricopa County Superior Court this summer.  While our client prevailed, what once was routine enforcement of garden variety earnest money provisions has become uncertain, requiring a trial court to examine the “particular circumstances of each case.”

On September 20, 2016, the Arizona Supreme Court granted review of the lower Court of Appeals decision in Dobson Bay.  We expect additional guidance on this issue to come from our State’s highest court.  In the meantime, real estate buyers, sellers, and their attorneys will be wrestling with the effects of the Dobson Bay opinion.

Jon Titus may be reached at 480-483-9600 or jtitus@tbl-law.com for questions concerning real estate law or other commercial law issues.

About the Author
Social Share
  • google-share

RECENT NEWS & ARTICLES

Scottsdale Leadership Article
Oct 27, 2021
The New COVID Relief Bill is In Play – Time to Rebound
Mar 16, 2021
2020 Scottsdale Mayoral Candidate Form Moderator – Kurt M. Brueckner
Oct 28, 2020
Scottsdale History Hall of Fame
Jun 18, 2019
LNA's Global Meeting
May 21, 2019
  • Home
  • Practices
  • Professionals
  • Firm
  • News
  • Articles
  • Legal Disclaimer