⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The First Circuit hears a dispute over deposits left behind when two real-estate deals fell apart. Two buyers, Dorado Gardens and Dorado Park, agreed to buy two properties and placed their deposits in escrow, so a third party held the money while the deals were pending. They later terminated the agreements and sued to get their deposits back. Under the contracts, the buyers' wrongful termination would give the sellers the entire deposit. At trial, the judge dismissed the buyers' own claims, and the jury found that they had improperly terminated the agreements. The jury awarded the sellers seventy percent from the deposit. The trial judge later changed that to the full deposit, reasoning that the contracts required one hundred percent once the buyers were found liable. The buyers' lawyer will argue that the jury had been invited to decide the amount and that the judge could not replace its answer. The sellers' lawyer will argue that the judge simply enforced a fixed contractual consequence and corrected an inconsistent verdict. A related dispute concerns whether the sellers should recover their attorneys' fees as the case's winning parties. Listen for the difference between applying a contract's fixed terms and changing a jury's factual decision, and why the timing of an objection matters.

Dorado Gardens LLC v Efron (No. 25-1681) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, argued November 6, 2026.