Voorheesville Rod & Gun Club v. E.W. Tompkins Co. case brief
summary
626 N.E.2d 917 (1993)
CASE FACTS
Buyer signed a contract to purchase undeveloped land from seller. The contract specified that the property would be conveyed by warranty deed subject to all covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements of record, and also to zoning and environmental protection laws, "provided that this does not render the title to the premises unmarketable." Prior to closing, buyer requested that seller seek subdivision approval from the city. Seller did not seek approval. When buyer refused to close on the specified date, seller cancelled the contract and returned its deposit. Buyer brought an action against seller for specific performance or damages. Buyer argued that seller's failure to obtain subdivision approval rendered the title unmarketable and its financing bank was unwilling to close. Seller subsequently obtained subdivision approval.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The appellate division ordered specific performance of the contract. Seller appealed.
DISCUSSION
The court reversed the order of the appellate division because the contract did not expressly provide that seller had to obtain subdivision approval.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the order of the appellate division because subdivision approval was not required for marketable title to the property that was the subject of the real estate contract.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
626 N.E.2d 917 (1993)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant seller appealed the order of
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial
Department (New York), which directed specific performance of the
real estate contract between seller and plaintiff buyer.CASE FACTS
Buyer signed a contract to purchase undeveloped land from seller. The contract specified that the property would be conveyed by warranty deed subject to all covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements of record, and also to zoning and environmental protection laws, "provided that this does not render the title to the premises unmarketable." Prior to closing, buyer requested that seller seek subdivision approval from the city. Seller did not seek approval. When buyer refused to close on the specified date, seller cancelled the contract and returned its deposit. Buyer brought an action against seller for specific performance or damages. Buyer argued that seller's failure to obtain subdivision approval rendered the title unmarketable and its financing bank was unwilling to close. Seller subsequently obtained subdivision approval.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The appellate division ordered specific performance of the contract. Seller appealed.
DISCUSSION
The court reversed the order of the appellate division because the contract did not expressly provide that seller had to obtain subdivision approval.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the order of the appellate division because subdivision approval was not required for marketable title to the property that was the subject of the real estate contract.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
Defendant seller appealed the order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department (New York), which directed specific performance of the real estate contract between seller and plaintiff buyer.
ReplyDelete