 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bailey v. Teemsma8/31/2004
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Plaintiffs Hera Diane Pinkie Bailey and Thomas L. Lohman (together Plaintiffs) appeal a judgment entered in favor of defendants Donald L. Teemsma and Barbara A. Teemsma (together Defendants) after the trial court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment. In granting the motion, the trial court concluded: (1) there is no evidence to support a finding that there was a binding and enforceable agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants for the sale of Defendants' real property; and (2) even were there an enforceable agreement, Plaintiffs did not perform conditions precedent to Defendants' obligation to sell the property. On appeal, Plaintiffs contend the court erred by granting Defendants' summary judgment motion because there are triable issues of fact whether: (1) the parties had a valid agreement for the sale of the property; (2) Defendants are estopped from asserting the statute of frauds as a defense to Plaintiffs' action; and (3) Plaintiffs did not perform necessary conditions precedent before Defendants repudiated the alleged sale agreement.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are married and residents of Alaska. In December 2000, while on vacation in San Diego, they stayed at Defendants' condominium building on Ocean Front Street. Defendants orally offered to sell one of their condominium units (the Property) to Plaintiffs for $575,000. Plaintiffs verbally accepted the offer and stated they wanted to purchase the Property through an Internal Revenue Code section 1031 tax-deferred exchange, selling two of their Alaskan rental properties. Plaintiffs suggested to Defendants that a closing of the purchase in September or October 2001 would be convenient for them.
In early 2001 Defendants asked to postpone the sale closing date until early 2002 for tax purposes. Plaintiffs agreed to postpone the closing.
On April 27, 2001, Defendants and Plaintiffs met in San Diego to discuss the purchase and sale of the Property. Defendants asked Plaintiffs whether they would agree to increase the purchase price by $75,000, to $650,000. Defendants also asked to have the closing date changed back to late 2001. Plaintiffs informed Defendants that they had taken their Alaskan rental properties off the rental market to sell them.
On May 12 Bailey sent Barbara A. Teemsma (Barbara) a letter in which she agreed (apparently on behalf of herself and Lohman) to Defendants' request for an increased purchase price and accelerated closing date. On May 30 Barbara sent Bailey a letter confirming their telephone conversation that day regarding "the sale of #4" and their agreement to "try to close escrow in November 2001."
On June 27 Barbara sent Bailey a cover letter and one-page "Letter of Intent to Purchase" (Letter). The cover letter stated:
"I met with escrow officer, Trudy Styron, at Stewart Title of California, Inc. last week to get things rolling on the sale of Condo #4. She asked me to send you a letter requesting a deposit of 'earnest money' to officially open escrow and get the sale underway.
"I am sending the enclosed letter of 'Intent to Purchase' so that we may mutually agree to begin this financial transaction. Please sign and mail one copy to me, and one copy to Stewart Title with the check. . . ."
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 California Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|