BACKGROUND
The parties separated on July 30, 2020. A listing and sale of the matrimonial home was ordered by the Court. The terms of sale in the Final Order included that the minimal listing price for the sale would be $630,000, and that the matrimonial home was to be listed no later than September 9, 2023. The Respondent Wife, Ms. Soltani, continued to live in the matrimonial home with the two children.
After September 9, 2023, the Wife informed the Applicant Husband, Mr. Rastkar, that the home needed repairs before it could be sold. The Husband’s took the position that the Wife was trying to delay the sale to remain living in the home longer. The Wife’s position was that the Husband wanted to reduce the value of the home by avoiding the repairs, thus, making the home more affordable for him to purchase.
The home was listed on October 2, 2023, for $799,000 in a closed bidding process. The only offer received was one from the Husband in the amount of $650,000 – over the minimum listing price of $630,000 but under the valuation at $799,000. The Wife refused the offer, and the Husband subsequently brought a motion.
ISSUES
- Is Mr. Rastkar entitled to bid on the matrimonial home and did Ms. Soltani obstruct that right?
- Did Ms. Soltani breach the terms of a court order or Schedule A of the parties’ listing agreement?
ANALYSIS
Is Mr. Rastkar entitled to bid on the property and did Ms. Soltani obstruct that right?
The Wife argued that the Husband should not be entitled to bid on the home, however, there is no case law to support that argument. The Court states that there is no dispute that the Husband is entitled to participate in the agreed upon bidding process. The issue is whether the Wife was obliged to accept the Husband’s offer. Justice Somji did not find that the Wife obstructed the Husband’s ability to participate in the bidding process because there were no specifications regarding the joint owner’s acceptance of an offer in the listing agreement. The Wife was entitled as a joint owner to hold out for the highest fair market value of the home available and since both parties agreed to list the property at $799,000, does not mean that the Wife had to accept the Husband’s offer that was just above the minimum listing price.
Did Ms. Soltani breach the terms of a court order or Schedule A of the parties’ listing agreement?
The Husband alleged that the Wife attempted to delay the sale of the home since she was living there rent free. The trial judge found that the Wife had been foregoing a portion of child and spousal support payments as her contribution to the property’s carrying costs and, thus, was not simply living there for free. There was also a delay in the approval and finalization of the draft Final Order until November 2023. The Court found that this delay was a result of the Husband attempting to relitigate certain issues and terms in the draft Final Order. Even through this delay, the Wife was diligent in advancing the sale of the home and ultimately proceeded to list the home despite there being no signed Final Order. Therefore, she did not breach the terms of the court order or Schedule A of the listing agreement.
CONCLUSION
Justice Somji ordered that the home be listed for sale again for $750,000. Every 30 days that the house is not sold, the listing price would be automatically reduced by at least $20,000 unless otherwise agreed by the parties until the property is sold. Both parties were permitted to bid on the house at the then listing price. The Court deems the Wife as the successful party on this motion.