On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division.
In August 2000, Estelle and Bernard Aronson entered into a contract to sell their home in Cherry Hill to Ross and Audrey Kotkin. The Kotkins deposited $10,000 in escrow upon signing a form real-estate-sales contract prepared by the Aronson's real estate agent. The contract provided the buyers with the right to have a home inspection covering a variety of areas, including "heating, air conditioning, plumbing, and electrical systems, foundation and structure, roof and flashing, possible environmental conditions affecting the property such as the presence of radon gas, formaldehyde gas, air-borne asbestos fibers, toxic chemicals, or other pollutants in the soil, air or water."
The contract also sets forth the parties' rights and obligations in the event "such inspection(s) reveals any defect in the area specified above[.]" When such a defect is found, the contract authorizes the buyers to terminate the agreement and obligates the sellers to refund the deposit monies, unless the sellers agreed, in writing, within five days, "to repair and/or replace same, as may be required, at the Seller's own cost and expense."
The Kotkins informed the Aronsons that the home inspection of the residence revealed the presence of radon. In response to that report, the Aronsons undertook remedial work that did not eliminate the radon but substantially lowered it to a level the Sellers believed to be safe. When the Aronsons refused the request to return the $10,000 deposit, the Kotkins instituted suit, seeking termination of the contract and a return of their deposit.
The Kotkins filed a motion for summary judgment, wh ich was granted. The motion judge concluded that because the contract did not refer to any specific level of radon gas but simply to the "presence of radon gas," the buyers were within their rights to terminate the contract. Because there were no triable issues of fact, judgment was entered against the Aronsons in the amount of $10,000.
On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the decision of the motion judge, explaining that "the parties were free to negotiate a specific level of radon as being acceptable, but did not. Indeed, the contract could have, but did not, even reference a 'safe' level of radon, which might have presented a triable issue of fact."
The Supreme Court granted certification.
HELD: Judgment of the Appellate Division is AFFIRMED substantially for the reasons expressed in the per curiam opinion. Based on the clear language of the contract, the presence of radon gas revealed during a home inspection is a sufficient basis to terminate the real-estate-sales contract between the parties.
1. Sellers did not qualify the radon clause. Although mindful that all homes have some measurable level of radon gas, that cannot defeat the plain language of the unqualified radon clause. In order to avoid these types of disputes in the future, parties are encouraged to include language in their contracts specifying the level of radon necessary to trigger a buyer's right to terminate.
CHIEF JUSTICE PORITZ and JUSTICES COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI and ALBIN join in this PER CURIAM opinion.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
(NOTE: This Court wrote no full opinion in this case. Rather, the Court's affirmance of the judgment of the Appellate Division is based substantially on the reasons expressed in the opinion below.)
We affirm the judgment below, substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at ___ N.J. Super. ___(2002). We add only ...