SULLIVAN V. PORTER 861 A.2d 625 (2004) CASE BRIEF

SULLIVAN V. PORTER

861 A.2d 625 (2004)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Porter (D) appealed from a judgment in favor of Sullivan (P) in which the jury found that the parties had entered into an oral contract for the sale of the D's farm and the trial court ordered D to transfer the property to P.

FACTS: D offered to sell his property to Ps for $350,000 with owner-financing at an interest rate between five and seven percent for a period between twenty and thirty years, and asked for a $20,000 down payment. Ps orally accepted his offer. D said he would contact his attorney to start the paperwork. Ps said they would refinance their house to obtain the down payment for the property. D moved out of the farmhouse in September 2000, they gave the keys to Ps. Ps took possession of the property and began improving the stable and trails. This continued until November 24, 2000, when D arrived at the farm with a real estate agent. D told Ps that there was interest from another buyer, but also told Ps that he would honor their agreement. The next day, D reaffirmed and offered D $10,000 in cash toward the down payment. D eventually accepted $3000 toward the down payment. Ps began extensive renovations of the farmhouse, started their new business, joined the chamber of commerce, repaired horse trails, began giving riding lessons and rehabilitating horses, placed advertisements in the local newspaper, and paid for an appraisal of the property. D regularly visited the property and received updates about the renovations. As to the paper work D always responded that he was too busy to contact his attorney. Ps forwarded an appraisal valuing the property at $250,000 but stated they would honor the deal. D then offered to sell the property for $450,000 with a $50,000 down payment. Unable to resolve any issues, Ps filed a complaint for contract, promissory estoppel, and specific performance. D asserted the statute of frauds. An advisory jury found for P's on all issues. The court adopted their positions. It ordered specific performance. 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


No comments:

Post a Comment