Gay couple sues church after it refuses to sell them a mansion 'in case they host gay weddings'

dailymail.co.uk ^ | 10 September 2012 | By Daily Mail Reporter

[dennisw]

Suing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Worcester over claims it refused to sell them a mansion because of fears they would use it to host gay weddings.

The couple allege that they were in negotiations to buy Oakhurst, a former retreat center in Northbridge, Massachusetts, when church officials suddenly pulled out.

They say they inadvertently received an email from the chancellor of the diocese to the church's broker saying the reason was because of the 'potentiality of gay marriages' at the home.

The married business partners fell in love with the property, set in 26 acres of land after a two-year-long hunt for a site from which to launch their latest project - an inn where weddings and other big events would be hosted.

At no point, they claim, did they indicate that it would be specifically for gay weddings.

A former retreat centre, the property had been on the market for some time, boston.com reported.

They reached a preliminary agreement to buy Oakhurst for $1 million and offered $550,000 owing to $500,000 worth of repair needing to be done.

But 'With lightning speed,' Beret said, the church pulled out of the deal.

'It was not the kind of thing you would expect after having negotiated for a month, and everything having gone rather well.'

Outraged, the couple filed their suit on Monday, on the basis of sexual orientation in the course of a real estate negotiation, violating state law.

'I have lived quietly in the mainstream for nearly 60 years, and I expected to continue that,' Beret said.

'But I will not continue that at the expense of my dignity.'

[dennisw]

So now you have to sell to these idiots? People back out of real estate deals all the time.

[Jeff Chandler]

my dignity

There's dignity in butt sex?

[a fool in paradise]

They reached a preliminary agreement to buy Oakhurst for $1 million and offered $550,000

Then they didn't offer what was agreed to. Waaaaaaahhhhhh!

[crazydad]

I am so sick of these Colon Crashers. If it’s not one thing it’s another. Our country is doomed.

[Gasshog]

Get wise people and don’t bring up the “gay thang” as your reason for refusal to these queer as-folk - make something up, anything.

Then they don’t have a leg to stand on.

[Mike Darancette]

They reached a preliminary agreement to buy Oakhurst for $1 million and offered $550,000 owing to $500,000 worth of repair needing to be done.

If the buyer did not make a full price offer is the seller forced to sell?

[newzjunkey]

You can’t turn down a sale for certain reasons. If the broker really did say that, they’ll likely prevail in their case. We’ll buy for $1m but only offer $550K because it needs $500K more repairs? That sounds like a bogus offer to me. When they prevail, the Church will be paying them to take the property.

[doug from upland]

You don’t have an enforceable deal until both parties execute a contract and remove all contingencies. A seller can turn down a full price and terms offer and decide not to sell, but if the listing agreement was prepared properly, the broker could sue for his commission and prevail if he could show that the buyer could have performed (had down payment, could qualify for loan, or had all cash).

Once the seller accepts, if he tries to back out of the deal, the buyer may file suit for specific performance and force the sale.

[madprof98]

If the buyer did not make a full price offer is the seller forced to sell?

Given the sympathies of our courts these days, the Catholic Church will probably have to pay these guys to take the property off its hands.