Daily Development for Monday, February 12, 2007
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
VENDOR/PURCHASER; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: Once seller complies with court’s specific performance order, seller’s appeal of the case is moot, even when seller alleges error in the trial court’s refusal to permit evidence of buyer fraud.
Thorn v. Walker, 912 A.2d 1192 (D.C. 2006)
Seller executed a contract for the sale of residential property for a price of $190,000. The closing date was more than six months after execution. The contract was subject, apparently, to a financing condition that benefitted both parties. In a timely fashion, Buyer submitted a loan pre-approval letter that satisfied the financing condition, but Seller, who had lived in the home for more than 30 years, changed her mind about selling and attempted unsuccessfully to refund the $1000 security deposit.
After execution of the contract, the court notes, the value of the home increased in value substantially (we aren’t told why - must be a story in there someplace). Buyers brought a specific performance action to compel the Seller to complete the contract. The trial court granted specific performance. About two years later, the trial court awarded specific performance to Buyers. The trial court ordered that the sale occur no later than six months from the date of the order (postponing the original sale to a date more than three years from the execution of the contract.)
A month after the trial court’s order, Seller moved for a new trial. She presented a letter from the General Counsel of the lender listed in the “pre approval letter” that Buyer had submitted. The letter indicated that the party shown as the lender’s representative in that letter was not shown on the lender’s records as ever employed by the company, and opined that it appeared that the pre-commitment letter was a fraud. The employee in question had testified at the trial a few months before, and the trial court commented that it found that party credible, and that this new evidence was not timely submitted, although Seller had adequate time to obtain it before trial. The court concluded that the un-cross examined statement of the general counsel of the lender “does nothing to change the Court’s view.” Further, it did not itself suggest that Buyers’ themselves made any misrepresentation. The court denied the new trial.
Seller did not seek a stay of the court’s order pending appeal, and complied with the court’s order to sell the property, but also continued the appeal.
The appeals court heard argued on December 5 and issued its opinion less than three weeks later, concluding that the case was moot and non-justiciable. There were no money damages issues, and the entire subject of the lawsuit was the sale of the property, which had now been carried out.
The court distinguished several other precedent cases that seemed to be pretty close - on the grounds that in those cases there was no concrete evidence that the property sale had actually taken place (although the facts before the court suggested that this might have happened).
Comment 1: It seems inescapable that a stay is necessary in order to prevent the carrying out of a judicial decree. Of course, typically a stay will require the posting of a bond, which likely the Seller in this case couldn’t afford. Is this a case of “justice delayed is justice denied?” Ythe editor doesn’t think so. The court made a point of evaluating Seller’s claims supporting her new trial motion, which it didn’t have to do, and indicated that the trial judge made the right call. The circumstances surrounding the pre-commitment letter were suspicious, admittedly, but there has to be an end to litigation, and the information could have been produced in the two years preceding the trial.
Comment 2: One of the great war stories the editor knows in this area concerns a law school classmate who is a colorful trial attorney in Sacramento, California. He obtained a substantial judgment against Montgomery Ward (then still active and vital) and the defense filed an appeal, but did not post an appeal bond. Plaintiff’s counsel got a charging order for all the receipts from a local Montgomery Ward store and appeared on television inviting everyone in the area to come shop at that location because all the proceeds would be used to pay his client for the injustice Montgomery Ward had perpetrated. A stunt - but makes a good story. It’s not his only good story.
Items reported here and in the ABA publications
are for general information purposes only and
should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions in
legal matters. The same is true of all
commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT
list. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed
are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor
and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day.
subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:
for information on other commands, send the
Help to the listserv address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find
this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the
residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you
subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as
BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
DIRT is a service of the American Bar
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
Your e-mail address will only be used within the ABA and its entities. We do not sell or rent e-mail addresses to anyone outside the ABA.
To change your e-mail address or remove your name from any future general distribution e-mails you can call us at 1-800-285-2221, or write to: American Bar Association, Service Center, 321 N Clark Street, Floor 16, Chicago, IL 60610
If you are an ABA member, log in to the ABA Web site at https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.abanet.org/abanet/common/MyABA/home.cfm to edit your member profile. Otherwise, complete the form located at https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=https://www.abanet.org/members/join/coa2.html
To review our privacy statement, go to https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.abanet.org/privacy_statement.html.
If you have any problems, please contact the list owner