To Have and Have Not - Sedgwick's Real Estate Newsletter - November 2010


A recent California appellate court ruling found that non-refundable deposits are in fact refundable.

In a decision sure to raise a few eyebrows, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that a seller of real property must return a non-refundable deposit.

The dispute arose out of plaintiff Bradford Kuish's agreement to purchase William and Rhonda Smith's Laguna Beach home for $14 million. In the agreement, Kuish was required to make two non-refundable deposits totaling $620,000. He did so, although he later decided not to purchase the home. After the escrow was canceled, the Smiths accepted a backup offer and sold the property for $15 million to a third party. The Smiths, however, refused to return Kuish's deposit, and he sued.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Sedgwick LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Sedgwick LLP on:

JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.