A Virginia court recently ruled on a real estate contract dispute involving Patrick Kennedy and Kevin Almond, affirming the lower court's decision that Kennedy breached the contract. This ruling has significant implications for buyers using VA loans and the interpretation of real estate agreements.
The case, Patrick J. Kennedy v. Kevin S. Almond, was filed under record number 0654-24-1 in the Court of Appeals of Virginia. The court's opinion was issued on September 29, 2026, by Judge Frank K. Friedman, with Judges Malveaux and Lorish also present.
The dispute arose when Kennedy contracted to purchase a property in Seaford, Virginia, from Almond and Peninsula Realty, LLC. The original purchase price was set at $845,000. However, after a VA appraisal determined the property's reasonable value at $750,000, Kennedy renegotiated the price to $781,000, which still exceeded the appraised value. Shortly after the renegotiation, Kennedy opted to back out of the deal, leading to a lawsuit from the sellers.
The sellers argued that Kennedy could not invoke a clause in the contract allowing him to walk away after he had already chosen to proceed with the purchase. The trial court agreed, ruling that Kennedy was in breach of the contract and ordered him to pay damages to the sellers.
The court's ruling centered on the interpretation of Section 11(A) of the contract, which provided that if the purchase price exceeded the property's reasonable value, the buyer could either walk away or proceed with the agreement. The trial court found that by renegotiating the price, Kennedy had opted to proceed and thus forfeited his right to back out later.
The court stated, "Section 11(A) does not give a buyer endless 'bites at the apple.'" It further clarified that once Kennedy chose to renegotiate, he could not later claim the right to terminate the agreement.
As a result of the ruling, Kennedy was ordered to pay $96,000 to Almond, $46,860 to Peninsula Realty, and $37,474 in attorney fees. Additionally, his counterclaim for the return of his earnest money deposit was denied.
This ruling has broader implications for real estate transactions, particularly those involving VA loans. It clarifies that buyers cannot continuously rely on escape clauses after renegotiating a contract, which could lead to more certainty in real estate dealings. Sellers can now proceed with confidence, knowing that buyers must honor renegotiated agreements.
The court's decision reinforces the importance of clear communication and understanding of contract terms in real estate transactions. Buyers must be aware that once they choose to proceed with a purchase after a low appraisal, they may lose the option to back out without consequences.
Looking ahead, it is unclear if Kennedy will appeal the ruling. There are no indications of related cases pending that could affect this ruling. However, this case serves as a reminder for all parties involved in real estate transactions to carefully consider the implications of their contractual agreements.