## Facts

- Shelby Baptist Hospital recruited Dr. John Chambers, requiring him to relocate from Indiana to Birmingham, Alabama.
- Chambers signed a letter of intent (LOI) describing basic employment terms and anticipating a later “definitive agreement” with additional terms.
- Sherri Ellis and Scott Peters (the sellers) entered into a written contract to sell their Alabama home to John Chambers and Cynthia Chambers (the buyers) for $1.9 million, plus $60,000 in furniture.
- The sales contract included a financing contingency permitting either party to cancel if the buyers could not obtain financing by the closing date.
- The buyers sought financing, including a conventional mortgage. The lender conditioned approval on proof that Chambers had fully executed the hospital’s definitive employment agreement (and satisfied related employment conditions).
- Chambers later received the hospital’s definitive agreement and found new terms he regarded as materially unfavorable compared to the LOI (including restrictive provisions affecting his ability to work elsewhere in Birmingham if the arrangement failed).
- Chambers refused to sign the definitive agreement, and the lender would not finalize the mortgage without the executed agreement.
- The transaction did not close. The sellers later sold the home to another buyer for less money.
- The sellers sued in federal district court under Alabama law for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and fraudulent suppression, arguing that Chambers knew about the definitive agreement (and its risks) before signing the home-purchase contract.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the buyers and rejected related requests for discovery and evidentiary relief. The sellers appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the buyers breached the sales contract by failing to close, or whether the financing contingency excused performance because they made reasonable, good-faith efforts to obtain financing but could not obtain final approval.
2. Whether the sellers presented sufficient evidence of fraudulent inducement under Alabama law based on alleged misstatements or omissions about the buyers’ employment and ability to obtain financing.
3. Whether the sellers presented sufficient evidence of fraudulent suppression under Alabama law, including the existence of a duty to disclose employment-related facts in an arm’s-length home sale.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion in discovery and evidentiary rulings, including refusing to compel attorney–client communications based on an asserted advice-of-counsel waiver and denying related post-judgment relief.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the buyers on all claims.
- The court held the financing contingency excused the buyers’ failure to close because the record showed reasonable, good-faith efforts to obtain financing and an inability to satisfy lender conditions once the employment terms proved unacceptable.
- The court held the sellers failed to create a triable issue on fraudulent inducement because the evidence did not show a false statement of existing fact (or a present intent not to perform) when the home contract was signed.
- The court held fraudulent suppression failed because the sellers did not show a duty requiring the buyers to disclose employment risks or negotiations in this arm’s-length transaction, or intentional concealment of a known material fact.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in its discovery/evidentiary rulings, including declining to compel privileged attorney–client communications where the buyers had not placed the substance of legal advice at issue.

## Legal Principles

- A real estate contract financing contingency generally requires the buyer to make reasonable, good-faith efforts to obtain financing; if financing cannot be obtained despite those efforts, the buyer’s nonperformance may be excused rather than a breach.
- Under Alabama law, fraudulent inducement requires a material misrepresentation of an existing fact (or proof of a present intent to deceive regarding a future act), reasonable reliance, and damages; predictions, expectations, or later-changed conditions ordinarily do not suffice without evidence the statement was false when made.
- Fraudulent suppression under Alabama law requires (among other elements) a duty to disclose and intentional concealment of a material fact; in typical arm’s-length dealings, a disclosure duty is limited absent special circumstances.
- Attorney–client privilege is not waived simply because a party argues it acted in good faith; waiver generally requires placing the content of legal advice in issue such that fairness requires disclosure.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed judgment for the buyers in a failed home sale, concluding the financing contingency excused nonperformance because the buyers pursued financing in good faith but could not satisfy lender conditions after the hospital’s definitive employment agreement contained unacceptable terms, and holding the sellers’ Alabama fraud and suppression theories (and related discovery challenges) lacked evidentiary support.


Ellis v. Chambers, 2022 WL 17752231 (2022)