Appraisal gap issue, buyers won’t negotiate

[Nicholas Grell]

We are selling our primary home in a very hot San Diego market. We received multiple offers, pushing the price 40k+ over asking. Accepted offer came from a buyer  utilizing an appraisal gap clause to offer an addition 10k over appraisal. We got hit with a rather low appraisal that even with the 10k, leaves an 8k shortfall. We have tried all lines of negotiation with the buyer (request second appraisal, split the difference, accept lower price with allowance of 1 month free rent back), the agents have even offered to throw some commission back, but the buyers refuse. They believe (and are being advised), that we as the sellers are contractually obligated to sell them the property at this now lower price of appraisal + 10. We are now being threatened with a lawsuit after close if we do not oblige them. Our broker’s attorney thinks it’s crazy, but the buyers are now being represented by a well seasoned California real estate attorney. What are we missing here? We’ve done so many investment real estate transactions, but of course the first sale of a “family home” and it all goes awry. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

[Wayne Brooks]

@Nicholas Grell Okay, so this is not any type of “standardized” appraisal addendum. But BTW, #3 Does supersede #1, as written.  It is Very poorly written and neither agent should have let it go as written.

My first thought was........It does Not say what happens if the appraisal is more than $10k below the contract price....ie. either buyer can walk Or seller sells for appraisal plus $10k.

But, after reading it again, my thought is.....the clause says the buyer will pay the Difference Between Appraisal and the Sales  Price (up to $10k).  No Where, does it say seller will sell for “appraisal plus $10k”.  To me, they are dead in the water.

Typically, when such an ambiguity is the crux of a court action, the court rules against whoever drafted the ambiguous clause.  Since they are “threatening” to sue “After the closing”, as opposed to now, I’d consider it less likely, and more of just a bluff.