Seller allegedly reneges on agreement to sell Groves business

Kelly Holleran Mar. 25, 2013, 1:49pm

A company claims it faces the possibility of losing thousands of dollars after the seller of a parcel of property is threatening to renege on his agreement to sell his business. 

Bright Future filed a lawsuit March 11 in Jefferson County District Court against Jawed Hussain and Daphne Larocca Hussain.

In its complaint, Bright Future alleges Jawed Hussain agreed to sell Ali’s Tobacco Outlet No. 2 at 3758 Main Avenue in Groves. Initially, Jawed Hussain wanted to sell the property for earnest money of $5,000, plus $145,000 that would be due at closing, according to the complaint. A remaining balance of $280,000 would be owner-financed, the suit states.

Bright Future paid the earnest money on Jan. 3 and took over the premises on Jan. 5 the complaint says. It claims it was scheduled to pay the $145,000 in closing costs on Feb. 1.

However, Jawed Hussain failed to provide the required paperwork for the Feb. 1 closing. Since then, Jawed Hussain has repeatedly failed to produce required documentation for the sale of the property, according to the complaint.

Because of Jawed Hussain’s assurances that he would provide the paperwork, Bright Future made two $15,000 payments and one $5,000 payment, the suit states. Then, suddenly, Jawed Hussain announced that he was not going to sell Bright Future the property under the agreed-upon terms, the complaint says. Instead, he gave Bright Future the chance to lease the property for one year before purchasing it.

“This would have increased the cost to plaintiffs and did not fit into their business plan of obtaining the property immediately,” the suit states. “Moreover, plaintiffs then learned that the real property was not owned by defendant, Jawed Hussain, but rather owned by his wife, defendant Daphne Larocca Hussain, who was not a party to the original contract.”

In its complaint, Bright Future wants to preserve the status quo until a final trial.

Judge Milton Shuffield, 136th District Court, has been assigned to the case.

Case No. D193-143

More News