The Hotel Lenhart in Bemus Point.

The sale of the Hotel Lenhart has turned contentious with two lawsuits filed this week in state Supreme Court.

Both the buyers and sellers are suing each other over the $3.5 million sale of the Hotel Lenhart property. John L. Johnston Jr., Barbara J. Johnston, Deborah A. Johnston and Lenhart Enterprises Inc. filed suit against William H. Curry II and Jill Curry, the prospective buyers of the historic hotel, to void the July 22, 2022 sales contract. In a second lawsuit, the Currys are asking state Supreme Court to require the sale to proceed.

THE CURRENT OWNERS’

LAWSUIT

The Johnstons claim in their filing that the Currys haven’t met several stipulations required in the sale contract – which both sides have entered as evidence for the court to consider. They say the $3.5 million sale price included seven parcels of land, with $30,000 to be deposited and the remainder to be paid in cash at closing.

The contract was supposed to be contingent on the Currys obtaining a mortgage. On May 5, 2023, the Johnstons said they had not been notified if the Currys had satisfied the contingencies in the sale agreement, prompting a letter requesting an update. On May 25, a second letter was sent requesting an update and indicating the Johnstons would set a 30-day “time is of the essence” closing date if no response was received.

“After receiving no response, counsel for the plaintiffs wrote to Uber Law Office again on June 2, 2023, indicating the plaintiffs would declare the contract null and void if a written mortgage commitment was not received by June 9, 2023,” the lawsuit states. “On or about June 8, 2023, the defendants provided a written proposal indicating that they were unable to obtain financing and offering a new proposal, whereby $3 million would be funded by a mortgage loan and $500,000 would be funded by seller financing.”

The Johnston’s rejected that offer and declared the sale null and void, though the Johnstons say they continued negotiations through the end of 2023.

“Despite the plaintiffs’ clear and unambiguous declaration that they were declaring a contract null and void, the plaintiffs continued in good faith thereafter in attempts to negotiate a new contract with new financing terms with the defendants,” the Johnstons’ lawsuit states. “However, the parties were ultimately unable to agree upon any terms, and on January 19, 2024, counsel for the plaintiffs wrote to counsel for the defendants, stating inconclusively that they were not interested in engaging in any further negotiations.”

THE PROSPECTIVE OWNERS’ LAWSUIT

The Currys agree that they paid the $30,000 deposit in 2022 and say the terms of the sale as agreed to in 2022 are just and reasonable and should be enforced.

The disagreement comes in the parties’ view of whether or not the 2022 contract was followed. While the Johnstons say the terms of the sale wasn’t met on time, the Currys say they have lived up to their end of the contract and are asking state Supreme Court Justice Grace Hanlon to require the sale to proceed.

“Plaintiffs have substantially performed all of their contractual obligations and are ready, willing and able to perform their remaining obligations under the contract of sale,” the Currys state in their court filing. “Upon information and belief, defendants are able to convey the premises and complete their obligations as set forth in the contract of sale. Defendants now refuse and have continued to refuse to complete the contract of sale and convey the premises to the plaintiffs, without just cause and despite the demands of the plaintiffs that they do so.”