Lamont v. Ball

California Court of Appeal Aug 10, 1949 No. Civ. 13878Published

Before: Dooling

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the vendors could not forfeit the purchasers' rights under an oral land sale contract because they failed to tender a deed or provide the required notice to terminate the contract after waiving strict performance.

Issues

Whether the purchasers were in default when the vendors failed to tender a deed on the date the balance of the purchase price was due.
Whether the vendors could terminate the contract and forfeit the purchasers' rights without providing notice and a reasonable time to perform when time was not of the essence.
Whether the evidence supported the trial court's findings that the purchasers' actions constituted a breach justifying forfeiture.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The law abhors forfeitures”

“respondents having once waived strict performance appellants were entitled to treat the contract as continuing in the absence of notice to the contrary”

[292]

DOOLING, J.

Plaintiffs and appellants sued defendants and respondents for specific performance of an oral contract to sell and convey a lot of land improved with a dwelling house and the furniture and furnishings thereof and respondents cross-complained to quiet their title to the real property. Judgment went against appellants on their complaint and in favor of respondents on the cross-complaint.

On September 13, 1945, the parties entered into an oral agreement whereby respondents agreed to sell the real and personal property for $3,000, $2,000 of which was paid at the time, the balance of $1,000 being represented by a promissory note payable on December 31, 1945. Appellants also agreed to assume an existing indebtedness secured by a mortgage on the real property. The trial court expressly found that under the terms of said agreement time was not of the essence. Under the agreement appellants were immediately let into possession.

On December 31, 1945, the promissory note was not paid nor did respondents tender a deed to the property. On February 28, 1946, respondents demanded payment of the promissory note by appellants with interest as provided therein on or before March 12, 1946, on penalty of forfeiture of their rights. However, no deed was tendered to appellants on or before the latter date. In April, 1946, appellants requested respondents to place a deed to appellants in an escrow opened for that purpose promising: “The deal should close quickly and your check will be sent you by the title company.” On May 3, 1946, respondents deposited a deed in escrow as requested with instructions to deliver it on payment of $1,000 with interest to date at the rate provided in the promissory note.

The sale which appellants had negotiated to a third party fell through because of mortgage liens which appellants had created on their equity in the real property and on August 1, 1946, the escrow was closed. In June, 1946, appellants vacated the property in anticipation of its proposed sale and early in September, 1946, respondents having learned that the escrow was terminated and finding the property vacant reoccupied it. On September 28, 1946, appellants tendered the balance due to respondents and demanded a deed which respondents refused on the ground that appellants’ rights had been forfeited.

Lamont v. Ball

AI Brief

DOOLING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief