A-22-0131, Cory Lewis and Elizabeth N. Lewis (Appellants) v. Mick D. Goslin and Beth L. Hersh-Goslin (Appellees)
Washington County, District Judge John E. Samson
Attorney for Appellants: John P. Farrell (The Law Offices of John P. Farrell, LLC)
Attorney for Appellees: James B. McVay (Tiedeman, Lynch, Kampfe, McVay & Respeliers)
Civil Action: Land Sale Contract
Action Taken by Trial Court: The Lewises entered into a purchase agreement with the Goslins for the sale of residential property in rural Washington County. The Goslins began occupying the property and making monthly payments to the Lewises shortly after the purchase agreement was executed, but before closing had occurred. After several years, the Goslins had made numerous payments toward the purchase price of the property but closing had still not occurred; due in part because the Lewises’ neighbors, the Welshes, had previously agreed to buy a portion of the Lewises’ property but had since reneged on their purchase agreement despite filing a notice of interest with the Washington County Register of Deeds.
Following a trial, the district court entered an order which found that the purchase agreement, on the date of execution, was a valid and legally enforceable contract and further found that Goslins had substantially complied with the terms of the contract. Because the Goslins had paid substantial sums of money towards the purchase price, had presented a preapproval letter from their bank, and had always been ready and willing to close on the property, the district court found that the Goslins were entitled to specific performance. The district court also ordered the Lewises to provide $55,000 in financing, as provided for in the purchase agreement.
While delays in closing occurred following the trial, closing has since occurred and the Lewises have transferred the title of the property to the Goslins at the time of this appeal.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: The Lewises appeal, assigning that the district court erred by (1) finding that the purchase agreement was unambiguous and sufficiently certain and definite to be valid; (2) not considering the prior agreement between the Lewises and Welshes when interpreting the purchase agreement; (3) finding that the Lewises had waived their right to rescind the purchase agreement by their conduct; (4) considering a lis pendens filed by the Welshes on the property to be a valid reason for the Goslins to not attempt to close on the property; (5) finding that the Goslins were ready, willing, and able to close on the property because of a preapproval letter from the bank; (6) considering non-cashed checks from the Goslins to the Lewises to be payment for rent; (7) finding that the Goslins did not forfeit their right to close on the property by failing to do so within the previously ordered 60-day period; (8) ordering the Lewises to finance $55,000 of the purchase price; and (9) ordering the Lewises to be bound to a financial loan without considering changes in circumstances.