Heads up, dirt lawyers, this is another case dealing with drafting issues. Please read it carefully and apply its concepts the next time you are asked to draft a right of first refusal.

Crescent Homes SC, LLC v. CJN, LLC* involved a contract for CJN to develop 32 lots in a subdivision for sale to Crescent Homes. Crescent Homes would build single-family homes on these lots for sale to homebuyers. The contract referenced a “Future Phase on adjacent property owned by CJN and contained the following paragraph:

“Right of First Refusal: At the Initial Closing, (CJN) will grant to (Crescent) a right of first refusal with respect to the lots cross-hatched and shown on Exhibit ‘A-2’ as “Future Phase” and any additional lots that may from time to time be annexed or otherwise included in the Subdivision. A memorandum of such right of first refusal in a form reasonabl(y) acceptable to the Parties will be recorded in the public records of Greenville County at the Initial Closing.”

CJN did not start development of the future phase because of cost concerns. Crescent brought a lawsuit for breach of contract asserting CJN delayed the initial closing by, most significantly, failing to maintain the lots free from trash and debris. Crescent sought specific performance and other remedies.

CJN entered into a contract with Douglas Clark making termination of the right of first refusal in the Crescent contract a contingency. When CJN provided a copy of the Clark offer to Crescent, Crescent responded by offering $700,000 to purchase the property and by filing a lis pendens. Crescent notified CJN that even though the right of first refusal was binding, Crescent was not required to exercise or waive it at that time because the initial closing had not yet occurred.

Crescent asserted that the right of first refusal had not been delivered and was not capable of being validly exercised at that time. Clark withdrew his offer for reasons unrelated to this controversy.

The initial closing took place and the parties began the process of developing the lots in the first phase of the subdivision.

CJN filed a lawsuit against Crescent seeking a declaratory judgment and alleging abuse of legal process. The suit alleged that that the right of first refusal was invalid and Crescent had filed four lis pendens for the ulterior purpose of preventing the sale of the future phase property to third parties. CJN also answered Crescent’s complaint asserting counterclaims of breach of contract and quantum meruit/unjust enrichment and seeking remedies of specific performance and monetary damages.

CJN filed a motion for partial summary judgment alleging the right of first refusal was void because it constituted a restraint on the alienation of the property.  The Master denied the motion, finding factual disputes and novel issues required further inquiry.

CJN continued to market the property and obtained at least one additional offer. Crescent filed a motion to consolidate the cases. CJN amended its complaint, adding causes of action for tortious interference with a contractual relationship and unfair and deceptive trade practices.

The Master bifurcated the proceeding and tried CJN’s cause of action for a declaration that the right of first refusal was unenforceable. Crescent moved to dismiss, arguing no justiciable controversy as the matter was not ripe because the previous offers had been withdrawn.

The Master denied that motion and found the right of first refusal to be unenforceable because it was an unreasonable restraint on the alienation of an interest in land, stating “based on the language used in (the paragraph), the court is unable to interpret and/or give meaning to the parties’ agreement without substantially and significantly creating terms and conditions that the parties themselves could have and should have included.”  This appeal followed.

The Court of Appeals held that the matter was justiciable once a bona fide offer had been made. Neither party provided cases regarding ripeness in which offers were made and subsequently withdrawn.

As to the enforceability of the right of first refusal, the Court stated that such a right does restrain an owner’s power of alienation, but the question becomes whether the right unreasonably restrains alienation.

The Court cited a prior case holding that a right of first refusal was unenforceable because it failed to identify the property it encumbered, failed to contain price provisions and failed to contain procedures governing the exercise of the right. The Court found those factors present in this case and affirmed the Master’s finding of unenforceability.

Dirt lawyers, a rule against perpetuities issues was also raised against the right of first refusal, but the Court held it did not have to reach that issue. That is drafting challenge that we will save for another day. The bottom line in this case is that drafting real estate documents requires a great deal of skill and continuing legal research. Be careful out there!

*South Carolina Court of Appeals Opinion 6093 (November 20, 2024)