Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 of 5 <br />provides that "[n]othing in this part shall be construed to interfere with a redevelopment agency's <br />authority, pursuant to enforceable obligations as defined in this chapter, to (1) make payments due, <br />(2) enforce existing covenants and obligations, or (3) perform its obligations."z DOF is reading <br />Section 34163 out of context and is therefore mistaken in its conclusion that the S.A. Venture <br />Agreement is not an ongoing enforceable obligation. The obligation to pay the Fees was a legally <br />binding and enforceable agreement of the Former Agency and is now a legally binding and <br />enforceable agreement, and therefore an enforceable obligation, of the Successor Agency. <br />As discussed above, if the DOF rejected the S.A. Venture Agreement due to the potential <br />need to enter into future implementing agreements, AB 1484 (specifically Section 34177.3(a)) <br />clarifies that Successor Agencies may enter into new obligations to the extent required by <br />enforceable obligations. We dispute DOF's characterization of the S.A. Venture Agreements as <br />requiring the Successor Agency to enter into new obligations; however, even if this was the case, <br />AB 1484 clarifies that this is permitted when required by an enforceable obligation. <br />The S.A. Venture Agreement is a legally binding agreement, enforceable in accordance with <br />its terms. The fact that the Developer must perform future obligations to trigger the Successor <br />Agency's obligation to pay the Fees or that future additional agreements may be required to <br />implement the S.A. Venture Agreement does not render the agreement unenforceable. Contracts <br />with executory provisions are nonetheless binding and enforceable under California law, as explained <br />in more detail below. <br />California Law Upholds Enforceability of Executory Contracts. On December 22, 2008, in a <br />landmark decision emphasizing California's public policy favoring liberal enforcement of contracts, <br />in Patel v. Liebermensch, (2008) 45 Cal Ath 344, the California Supreme Court held that an <br />enforceable contract to sell real estate arises whenever the contract identifies the parties, the price, <br />and a reasonably certain description of the property. If the parties do not agree on other so-called <br />"non-essential" terms that might typically be included in a real estate transaction - such as closing <br />date, title insurance, financing terms, due diligence periods and the like - California courts will <br />supply such terms as are reasonable. Patel is thus sometimes known as the "Essential 3-P's" <br />decision. In thus clarifying the law relative to the enforcement of real estate contracts, our Supreme <br />Court emphasized the parties' intent controls. <br />Under California law, where terms are sufficiently definite for a court to ascertain the parties' <br />obligations and to determine whether those obligations have been performed or breached, a contract <br />will be enforced.3 An obligation is enforceable where its provisions are sufficiently certain to make <br />ascertainable the precise act that is to be done.4 A binding contract is created wherever its essential <br />terms are clearly enough stated to allow the parties to understand what each is required to do, the <br />contract is supported by consideration,s and the parties agreed to the terms of the contract.6 <br />Accordingly, California law is generally predisposed to uphold contracts as enforceable.' <br />Emphasis added. <br />3 Weddington Prods., Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.AppAth 793, 811; Boyd v. Bevilacqua (1966) 247 Ca1,App.2d 272, <br />287; Hennefer v. Butcher (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 492, 500-501; Robinson & Wilson, Inc. v. Stone (1973) 35 <br />Cal.App.3d 396, 407. <br />4 Cal. Civ. Code, § 3390, subd. (5) (requiring that specific performance is only available where the agreement has <br />terms sufficiently certain to make the precise act to be done clearly ascertainable). <br />5 Cal. Civ. Code § 1614 provides that "(a] written instrument is presumptive evidence of consideration." The S.A. <br />Venture Agreement is, naturally, a written instrument, and provides presumptive evidence of consideration. <br />SA Resolution No. 2012-007 <br />Page 16 of 24