EstatePass
ContractsBreach_and_remediesHARD

A Minnesota buyer, Felix, entered into a purchase agreement for a lakefront property. The agreement required the seller to provide a Well Disclosure Certificate at closing as required by Minn. Stat. § 103I.235. At closing, the seller's attorney presented a deed that contained a statement that 'no wells exist on the property.' However, Felix's own inspection had revealed an old, unsealed well on the property that was not registered with the Minnesota Department of Health. The seller claims the deed statement satisfies the well disclosure requirement. Felix refuses to close. Under Minnesota law, which party is correct?

Correct Answer

A) Felix is correct because the deed statement is false — a well does exist on the property — and the seller has not satisfied the well disclosure requirement; Felix may refuse to close until proper disclosure is made

Under Minn. Stat. § 103I.235, sellers must disclose the location and status of ALL wells on the property using a Well Disclosure Certificate filed with the county recorder at closing. If no wells exist, the deed may contain a statement to that effect as an alternative to the certificate. However, if a well does exist — whether registered or not — the deed statement that 'no wells exist' is false and does not satisfy the statutory requirement. The seller must provide an accurate Well Disclosure Certificate identifying the well's location and status. Felix is justified in refusing to close because the seller has not complied with the mandatory well disclosure law, which is a condition of a valid conveyance in Minnesota.

Answer Options
A
Felix is correct because the deed statement is false — a well does exist on the property — and the seller has not satisfied the well disclosure requirement; Felix may refuse to close until proper disclosure is made
B
The seller is correct because a deed statement that no wells exist satisfies the statutory requirement, and any dispute about the well's existence is a factual matter for post-closing litigation
C
The seller is correct because Minn. Stat. § 103I.235 only requires disclosure of registered wells, and an unregistered well is not subject to the statutory disclosure obligation
D
Felix is correct, but only because the well is unregistered; if the well were registered with the Minnesota Department of Health, the deed statement would be sufficient disclosure

Why This Is the Correct Answer

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Why the Other Options Are Wrong

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Deep Analysis of This Contracts Question

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Background Knowledge for Contracts

Sign up free to unlock full analysis
Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Real World Application in Contracts

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Common Mistakes to Avoid on Contracts Questions

Sign up free to unlock full analysis

Related Topics & Key Terms

Key Terms:

well_disclosure_certificateminn_stat_103Iseller_breachclosing_requirementlakefront_property

Related Concepts

Liquidated damages are a predetermined amount of money specified in the contract that the non-breaching party is entitled to receive if the other party breaches. In real estate, the earnest money deposit typically serves as liquidated damages.

Novation is the substitution of a new contract for an existing one, or the replacement of one party with a new party, with the consent of all parties involved. The original party is completely released from all obligations.

Offer and acceptance is the process by which one party proposes specific terms for a contract and the other party agrees to those exact terms, creating mutual assent. This mutual agreement, also called a meeting of the minds, is an essential element of every valid contract.

Was this explanation helpful?

More Contracts Questions

People Also Study

Related Articles

Contracts Questions

Practice More Questions

Access 2,000+ practice questions and pass your real estate exam.

Start Practicing