HILTON V. NELSEN 283 N.W.2d 877 (1979) CASE BRIEF

HILTON V. NELSEN

283 N.W.2d 877 (1979)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This is an appeal from the order of the district court awarding Hilton (P) specific performance of a contract for the sale of farmland and damages.

FACTS: Nelsen (D) entered into negotiations to sell their 720-acre farm to Hilton (P). D was not represented by an attorney until after the contract was signed. The sale was for $180,000 with a down payment of $52,200 and D to take back a mortgage or deed of trust for $127,800. The maturity was to be 10 years from the date of closing with only interest at 7% at the end of the first five years, and in years 6-9 interest plus principal of $2,000, and a balloon payment of $119,800 on the tenth year. D thought he was getting a contract for deed. However, when he got an attorney he learned that the agreement provided for title and possession to pass at closing. D then instructed his attorney that he would not close unless he got a contract for deed. P threatened to sue for specific performance. D changed his mind but did not inform P until one day before the initial closing date set in the contract. D had cleared his title of defects except for a real estate mortgage, a reservation of mineral rights by the State and an easement for public roads and utility cables. D bought another farm and moved to Nebraska. D called P and advised him that he was ready to close. D then alleged that P called and asked for a reduction in the price of $16,000. P denied making this demand and the evidence supported D's version of that event. D thought P had defaulted but on May 1, 1976, P informed D that he was ready to close again on May 1, 1976, the last closing date on the contract. D then informed P that he decided not to sell the farm. P sued for specific performance. P then discovered that D's mortgage was about to be foreclosed. Hilton decided to try to purchase the mortgage at the upcoming foreclosure sale. The mortgage was foreclosed and P got the bid at $67,000 subject to a one-year right of redemption. Another party, Lyle Mandt agreed to purchase the farm by redeeming the mortgage. D gave Mandt a quitclaim deed and Mandt gave D an option to repurchase the farm by January 1, 1978 for $121,074.05. The trial court found that D had breached the contract and ordered specific performance against both D and Mandt and allowed P to deduct $39,600 from the original price as the fair market rental value during 1976, and 1977. D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner