Hotel Lenhart is pictured. P-J file photo

The Pittsburgh couple attempting to buy the Hotel Lenhart have proposed paying for the hotel with their own money because mortgage financing has been difficult to secure, while a member of the Johnston family has proposed taking over the hotel themselves if the proposed sale of the hotel falls through.

Both pieces of information are part of dozens of court filings in the case over the historic Bemus Point hotel over the past week as the Johnston family seeks to nullify the July 2022 sale contract with William and Jill Curry of Pittsburgh and the Currys seek the court to force the sale to proceed with a modified contract. Both parties filed lawsuits against each other on March 19, though only the Johnstons’ lawsuit is seeing documents filed in anticipation of state Supreme Court Justice Grace Hanlon’s ruling on an order to show cause.

“Although my wife and I were initially pursuing financing, financing is not a requirement for us to complete the purchase of the properties identified in the contract of sale,” William Curry said in an affidavit filed with the state Supreme Court in Mayville last week. “We have adequate personal funds with which to the transaction. My current attorney has repeatedly informed the attorney for the plaintiffs that we are ready, willing, and able to close this transaction. We are simply waiting for the plaintiffs to comply with their contractual obligations and then set a closing date.”

The Johnston family, meanwhile, says there is another potential buyer interested while the family may choose to take the property off the market, according to a letter from their attorney, Neil M. Robinson, to the Currys’ attorney.

“Presently the realtor has informed them that there is a purchaser prepared to submit a letter of intent to purchase the properties,” Robinson wrote in his Dec. 13, 2023, letter. “Further, a family member of the Johnstons, who owns a hospitality company, is retiring soon and may be interested in operating the hotel. If we do not come to an agreement to sell to your clients or the (prospective) purchaser waiting in the wings, my clients would sell the two of the houses as soon as possible. The hotel will then be taken off the market so the family member can acquire it.”

Attorney Daryl Brautigam, the attorney representing the Currys, wrote in an affidavit filed April 2 that the Johnstons couldn’t have invoked a time is of the essence clause in the original sale contract because the original sales contract contained no closing date. Instead, the contract states closing would happen 30 days after all contingencies in the contract have been resolved. Brautigam notes several contingencies remain open in addition to the lack of mortgage financing – including some that were required of the Johnston family – while a formal declaration of the time is of the essence clause wasn’t actually sent from the Johnstons’ attorney to the Currys’ attorney, though there were several mentioned in correspondence between the two lawyers threatening the use of the contract-breaking clause.

“No such demand has been included in the correspondence attached by plaintiffs as Exhibit B to their moving papers,” Brautigam argued. “Mr. Robinson could not have sent such a letter since, as pointed out above, the contractual requirements for establishing a closing date had never been met by the plaintiffs and thus the predicate for a ‘time is of the essence’ letter had never been established. These deficits continue to be true to this day.”

Brautigam said the Currys have said in letters to the Johnstons that they were willing to waive several of the contingencies other than a property survey and another inspection of the property prior to closing. Offers and counter-offers continued until mid-January, when the Johnstons’ attorney said the family would be willing to move forward only if the Currys paid an additional $100,000 on the $3.5 million sale price.

He argued in a filing later in the week that the mortgage financing clause was required only after zoning and permits necessary to continue the existing Hotel Lenhart business had been secured by the Johnstons.

“Therefore, under the explicit terms of the contract, the defendants are not required – even now – to apply for a mortgage,” Brautigam argued. “Consequently, the plaintiffs cannot now cancel the contract, as the contract only permitted cancellation ‘if the purchaser (did not obtain a mortgage) by the date set forth in the addendum to contract.’ The date set forth in the addendum has not yet arrived.”

Joseph Calimeri, an attorney representing the Johnstons, argued the Johnstons’ were within their right to end the sale contract because the Currys had shown they were unable to get a mortgage for the hotel. He says issues with sellers’ contingencies not being satisfied is superseded by the lack of mortgage financing while arguing the Johnstons’ invoking of the ‘time is of the essence’ clause in the contract is legally binding.

“Clearly, the defendants would not have attempted to negotiate and provide consideration for an extension had they believed the Contract to still be valid and enforceable,” Calimeri wrote. “The Defendants desire to proceed with the sale now is not only unlawful, but inequitable. The Plaintiffs have spent tens of thousands of dollars to maintain the property during the last 20 months. In addition to having to pay the carrying costs for the property, including taxes, utilities and insurance, it also did not open its seasonal restaurant and hotel for the 2023 closing in anticipation of closing.”

Brautigam introduced into evidence several letters between the two parties over the past several months, including one in January that would set new terms