WILLSON v TAYLOR

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 GUY M. WILLSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, CHARLES R. TAYLOR, PHYLLIS A. TAYLOR, MICHAEL J. TAYLOR, CHRISTINE J. TAYLOR, MARK R. TAYLOR and TARA A. TAYLOR, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Fergus. Honorable Jack D. Shanstrom.,Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Moses Law Firm, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Robert L. Johnson and Torger S. Oaas, Lewistown, Montana Submitted on briefs: Decided: Filed: SEP 2 8 198 aLz.w g*Y v Clerk May 15, 1981 September 28, 1981 Mr. J u s t i c e Fred J . Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . A p p e l l a n t s / d e f e n d a n t s C h a r l e s R. T a y l o r and P h y l l i s A . T a y l o r , husband and w i f e , and Michael, C h r i s t i n e , Mark and Tara T a y l o r , minor c h i l d r e n , b r i n g t h i s a p p e a l from two o r d e r s e n t e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , F e r g u s County. The f i r s t o r d e r , d a t e d A p r i l 11, 1980, d e n i e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' motions t o d i s m i s s e a c h of t h e two c o u n t s of t h e c o m p l a i n t , t h e motions having been made s e p a r a t e l y by d e f e n d a n t s C h a r l e s and P h y l l i s T a y l o r and by t h e minor d e f e n d a n t s . The second o r d e r , d a t e d December 1 0 , 1980, g r a n t e d p a r t i a l summary judgment t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t / p l a i n t i f f Guy M. W i l l s o n a g a i n s t t h e a d u l t d e f e n d a n t s . W i l l s o n was g r a n t e d summary judgment on o n l y t h e f i r s t c o u n t of h i s c o m p l a i n t . The c a s e was p r o p e r l y c e r t i f i e d under Rule 5 4 and t h e r e f o r e , may be b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t f o r r e v i e w . The d e f e n d a n t s p r e s e n t t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n d e n y i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' v a r i o u s motions t o d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t ? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n g r a n t i n g summary judgment on Count I of t h e c o m p l a i n t t o t h e p l a i n t i f f ? W h o l d t h a t summary judgment was p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d and e a f f i r m t h e lower c o u r t . The p a r t i e s e n t e r e d i n t o a l e a s e agreement w i t h an option-to-purchase County. c o v e r i n g r e a l p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d i.n F e r g u s P l a i n t i f f W i l l s o n wants t o e x e r c i s e t h e o p t i o n and purchase t h e land. The p a r t i e s e x e c u t e d t h e l e a s e on J u l y 2 , 1 9 7 6 , with a term e n d i n g J a n u a r y 30, 1982. The l e a s e p r o v i d e s : "OPTION: " L e s s e e i s hereby g i v e n an o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y upon t h e t e r m s c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s The o p t i o n s h a l l be e x e r c i s a b l e d u r i n g paragraph. t h e month of December of any y e a r d u r i n g t h e l i f e of t h i s l e a s e . The o p t i o n p r i c e s h a l l b e Three Hundred Seventy F i v e D o l l a r s ($375.00) p e r a c r e i f e x e r c i s e d d u r i n g t h e y e a r s 1976, 1977, 1978 o r 1979. T h e r e a f t e r t h e o p t i o n p r i c e s h a l l be Four Hundred D o l l a r s ($400.00) p e r a c r e . Lessee s h a l l n o t i f y L e s s o r of t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e o p t i o n i n w r i t i n g , on o r b e f o r e t h e 1 0 t h day of December, a d d r e s s e d t o t h e L e s s o r a t Moore, Montana. The t e r m s of t h e s a l e s h a l l be twenty-nine p e r c e n t ( 2 9 % ) of t h e o p t i o n p r i c e t o be p a i d i n t h e month of t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e o p t i o n , w i t h t h e b a l a n c e of t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e t o be p a i d i n t h e n e x t s u c c e e d i n g month. Lessor a g r e e s t o pay t h e F e d e r a l Land Bank A s s o c i a t i o n of Lewistown s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s from t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e t o o b t a i n a r e l e a s e of any mortgage on t h e s u b j e c t property. I n a d d i t i o n , Lessor a g r e e s t o provide t i t l e i n s u r a n c e o r a b s t r a c t s showing m a r k e t a b l e t i t l e , on o r b e f o r e t h e d a t e t h a t t h e b a l a n c e of t h e purchase p r i c e i s paid. ... "OIL AND MINERAL RIGHTS: " L e s s o r s h a l l r e t a i n a l l e x i s t i n g o i l and m i n e r a l r i g h t s d u r i n g t h e term of t h i s l e a s e , t o g e t h e r w i t h a r i g h t of i n g r e s s and e g r e s s t o d e v e l o p such r i g h t s . I n t h e event t h a t Lessee s h a l l e x e r c i s e h i s o p t i o n , t h e n L e s s e e s h a l l r e c e i v e one-half of any o i l and mineral r i g h t s then e x i s t i n g , together with t h e r i g h t and power t o l e a s e such o i l and m i n e r a l r i g h t s . " The l e a s e c o n t a i n s p r o v i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g l a n d d e s c r i p t i o n , t e r m , payment of c r o p s h a r e , o p e r a t i o n s , m i n e r a l s , f e n c e s , sub-lease, b r e a c h and r e - e n t r y and r i g h t of f i r s t r e f u s a l on t h e p a r t of t h e l e s s o r . The p l a i n t i f f f i l e d h i s c o m p l a i n t on December 20, 1979, r e q u e s t i n g s p e c i f i c performance of t h e s a l e . The d e f e n d a n t s ' f i r s t i s s u e c o n c e r n s t h e motions t o d i s m i s s made by them and t h e i r c h i l d r e n . Four s e p a r a t e m o t i o n s were made: one f o r e a c h c o u n t of t h e c o m p l a i n t by t h e p a r e n t s and one f o r e a c h c o u n t by t h e minor c h i l d r e n . A l l of t h e motions were d e n i e d by o r d e r d a t e d A p r i l 11, I. A c o m p l a i n t s h o u l d n o t be d i s m i s s e d f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m u n l e s s i t a p p e a r s beyond d o u b t t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f c a n p r o v e no s e t of f a c t s i n s u p p o r t of h i s c l a i m which would e n t i t l e him t o r e l i e f . Conley v . Gibson ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. v. P r i c e (1979), 883, 886. 99, 1 0 2 , 2 L.Ed.2d Mont. , 80, 84; F r a u n h o f e r 594 P.2d 324, 327, 36 St.Rep. A motion t o d i s m i s s under Rule 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , M.R.Civ.P., h a s t h e e f f e c t of a d m i t t i n g a l l w e l l - p l e a d e d t h e complaint. allegations i n I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e motion, t h e c o m p l a i n t i s c o n s t r u e d i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f , and a l l a l l e g a t i o n s of f a c t c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n a r e t a k e n a s t r u e . , Commonwealth Edison Co. v . S t a t e ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. P.2d 847, 849, 37 St.Rep. (July 2, 1981), U.S. - , 1192, 1193, a f f ' d 1 0 1 S e c t . 2946, 69 L.Ed.2d 615 884, 49 U.S.L.W. 4957; F r a u n h o f e r v. P r i c e , s u p r a ; Duffy v. B u t t e T e a c h e r s ' Union, Number 332, AFL-CIO ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 541 P.2d 1199, 1202-1203. W e now proceed t o examine t h e 246, 252-253, a l l e g a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n e a c h c o u n t of t h e c o m p l a i n t . The f i r s t c o u n t a l l e g e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s owned c e r t a i n d e s c r i b e d r e a l p r o p e r t y i n F e r g u s County; t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f and d e f e n d a n t s e n t e r e d i n t o a w r i t t e n l e a s e of t h e p r o p e r t y , e x t e n d i n g t o J a n u a r y 30, 1982, under which t h e p l a i n t i f f i s granted an option t o purchase t h e lands i n q u e s t i o n ( a copy of t h e l e a s e i s a t t a c h e d t o t h e c o m p l a i n t and t h e t e r m s t h e r e o f i n c o r p o r a t e d by r e f e r e n c e ) ; and t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s been and i s p r e s e n t l y i n p o s s e s s i o n of t h e l e a s e d l a n d s and t h e l e a s e document was p l a c e d of r e c o r d . The f i r s t c o u n t t h e n g o e s on t o s t a t e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s a t t a c k e d by t h e T a y l o r s : " IV. " I n t h e month of December, 1979, and b e f o r e t h e 1 0 t h day t h e r e o f , p l a i n t i f f n o t i f i e d t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s i n w r i t i n g a d d r e s s e d t o them i n Moore, Montana of p l a i n t i f f ' s e x e r c i s e of t h e o p t i o n s e t f o r t h i n t h e l e a s e . P l a i n t i f f i s r e a d y , w i l l i n g , and a b l e t o perform h i s o b l i g a t i o n s under t h e o p t i o n and p l a i n t i f f h a s t e n d e r e d P l a i n t i f f i s informed and t h e r e q u i r e d down payment. b e l i e v e s , however, t h a t t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s have purp o r t e d t o a l i e n a t e t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n a p o r t i o n of t h e l a n d s s u b j e c t t o t h e o p t i o n , t h a t t h e y have p l a c e d a d d i t i o n a l encumbrances upon t h e l a n d , and t h a t t h e y have o t h e r w i s e endeavored t o f r u s t r a t e p l a i n t i f f ' s p u r c h a s e of t h e l a n d under t h e o p t i o n . Plaintiff is f u r t h e r informed and b e l i e v e s t h a t t h e s e d e f e n d a n t s i n t e n d t o r e f u s e t o perform t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n s under t h e o p t i o n . P l a i n t i f f h e r e w i t h o f f e r s t o perform h i s obligations fully. " The s u b s t a n c e of p a r a g r a p h I V i s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s n o t i f i e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s of t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e o p t i o n , t h e p l a i n t i f f i s ready t o perform, t h e p l a i n t i f f has tendered t h e downpayment, t h e d e f e n d a n t s have a l i e n a t e d a p o r t i o n of t h e l a n d t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n , t h e d e f e n d a n t s have p l a c e d a d d i t i o n a l encumbrances upon t h e l a n d , t h e d e f e n d a n t s have o t h e r w i s e endeavored t o f r u s t r a t e p l a i n t i f f ' s p u r c h a s e , d e f e n d a n t s i n t e n d t o r e f u s e t o perform, and p l a i n t i f f o f f e r s t o perform. A l l p l e a d i n g s must be s o c o n s t r u e d a s t o do substantial justice. Rule 8 ( f ) , M.R.Civ.P. The d e f e n d a n t s o b j e c t p r i m a r i l y t o t h e "informed and b e l i e v e d " p r e f a c e t o certain allegations. W e a r e required t o construe t h e complaint i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f , F r a u n h o f e r v . P r i c e , supra. W e hold t h e a l l e g a t i o n s a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o s t a t e a claim. T h i s C o u r t d o e s n o t f a v o r d i s m i s s a l s on p l e a d i n g , and r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t c a n o b t a i n a d d i t i o n a l information required. A s s t a t e d i n Tobacco R i v e r Lbr. Co. v . Yoppe ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 267, 271, 577 P.2d 855, "We n o t e a l s o t h a t s h o u l d d e f e n d a n t s d e s i r e any f u r t h e r d e g r e e of s p e c i f i c i t y , t h e y may o b t a i n t h e same by u s e of t h e a p p r o p r i a t e d i s c o v e r y d e v i c e s such as d e p o s i t i o n s , i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and r e q u e s t s t o admit. This Court does n o t favor t h e s h o r t c i r c u i t i n g of l i t i g a t i o n a t t h e i n i t i a l p l e a d i n g s t a g e u n l e s s a c o m p l a i n t does n o t s t a t e a c a u s e of a c t i o n under any s e t of f a c t s . . ." The same a n a l y s i s r e q u i r e s u s t o a f f i r m t h e lower c o u r t ' s o r d e r a s t o t h e second c o u n t , a l s o . I n t h a t count, t h e p l a i n t i f f i n c o r p o r a t e s a l l of t h e a l l e g a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n h i s f i r s t c o u n t , and t h e n f u r t h e r a l l e g e s : t h a t i n November of 1979 t h e p l a i n t i f f n o t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t C h a r l e s R. Taylor t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f i n t e n d e d t o and would e x e r c i s e t h e o p t i o n i n December; t h a t n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g such n o t i c e and t h e t e r m s of t h e o p t i o n , t h e a d u l t d e f e n d a n t s p u r p o r t e d t o convey t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n a l l of t h e m i n e r a l s under t h e s u b j e c t l a n d s ( a copy of t h e m i n e r a l i n t e r e s t conveyance i s a t t a c h e d t o t h e c o m p l a i n t and i n c o r p o r a t e d by r e f e r e n c e ) ; t h a t t h e conveyance was w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r a t i o n and i n c l e a r v i o l a t i o n of t h e t e r m s of t h e o p t i o n ; and, t h a t i f t h e conveyance i s n o t a v o i d e d , t h e v a l u e of t h e s u b j e c t l a n d s w i l l be d i m i n i s h e d i n t h e amount of $51,000 o r more. These a l l e g a t i o n s a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o s t a t e a claim f o r r e l i e f . The d e f e n d a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n s h o u l d have been d i s m i s s e d from c o u n t one i n any e v e n t . W do n o t a g r e e . e They a r e n o t p a r t i e s t o t h e l e a s e , s o c o u l d n o t b e a f f e c t e d by any d e c r e e g r a n t i n g s p e c i f i c performance. I n addition, t h e f i r s t count i s s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t e d a g a i n s t t h e p a r e n t s , a s was r e c o g n i z e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t when i t g r a n t e d summary judgment on c o u n t one a g a i n s t t h e a d u l t d e f e n d a n t s only. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t err i n r e f u s i n g t o d i s m i s s a s t o t h e children; they a r e not p a r t i e s t o t h e f i r s t count, and t h e y a r e p r o p e r p a r t i e s t o t h e second c o u n t a s t h e g r a n t e e s named i n t h e m i n e r a l conveyance. The d e f e n d a n t s a s s e r t t h a t t h e lower c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g summary judgment t o t h e p l a i n t i f f and a g a i n s t t h e a d u l t d e f e n d a n t s on c o u n t one. "When m u l t i p l e c l a i m s f o r r e l i e f and m u l t i p l e p a r t i e s a r e i n v o l v e d i n a n a c t i o n , t h e c o u r t may d i r e c t t h e e n t r y of a f i n a l judgment a s t o one o r more, b u t fewer t h a n a l l of t h e c l a i m s o r p a r t i e s o n l y upon a n e x p r e s s d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t t h e r e i s no j u s t r e a s o n f o r d e l a y and upon a n e x p r e s s d i r e c t i o n f o r t h e e n t r y of judgment." Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. The c o u r t by judgment d a t e d December 1 0 , 1980, p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e c o u r t had c e r t i f i e d t h a t t h e r e was no j u s t r e a s o n f o r d e l a y i n t h e e n t r y of f i n a l judgment on t h a t o r d e r . I t was, t h e r e f o r e , o r d e r e d , a d j u d g e d and d e c r e e d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s have judgment a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s t h a t t h e o p t i o n be s p e c i f i c a l l y performed. I t was a l s o o r d e r e d t h a t s a i d d e f e n d a n t s be r e q u i r e d t o s e l l and convey t h e l a n d s u b j e c t t h e r e t o t o p l a i n t i f f and t o e x e c u t e a good and s u f f i c i e n t conveyance t o him on payment by p l a i n t i f f of t h e amount o f t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e a l l i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e t e r m s and c o n d i t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n s a i d o p t i o n . T h i s m e e t s t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 54 ( b ) and t h e a p p e a l i s properly before t h i s Court. The f o l l o w i n g r u l e s governed t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h i s motion: "A p a r t y s e e k i n g t o r e c o v e r upon a c l a i m . . . may with o r without supporting a f f i d a v i t s f o r a summary judgment i n h i s f a v o r upon a l l o r any p a r t thereof." Rule 5 6 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. . . . move "The [summary] judgment s o u g h t s h a l l be g r a n t e d f o r t h w i t h i f t h e p l e a d i n g s , d e p o s i t i o n s , answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and a d m i s s i o n s on f i l e , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e [ s u p p o r t i n g ] a f f i d a v i t s , i f a n y , show t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment Rule 56 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P. a s a m a t t e r of law . . ." "When a motion f o r summary judgment i s made and supported a s provided i n t h i s r u l e , an adverse p a r t y may n o t rest upon t h e mere a l l e g a t i o n s o r d e n i a l s of h i s p l e a d i n g , b u t h i s r e s p o n s e , by a f f i d a v i t s o r a s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d i n t h i s r u l e , must s e t f o r t h s p e c i f i c f a c t s showing t h a t t h e r e i s a g e n u i n e i s s u e for trial. I f he d o e s n o t s o r e s p o n d , summary judgment, i f a p p r o p r i a t e , s h a l l be e n t e r e d a g a i n s t him." Rule 5 6 ( e ) , M.R.Civ.P. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t had b e f o r e i t a s a r e c o r d on c o u n t one t h e c o m p l a i n t and answer, twenty r e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s s i o n s u b m i t t e d t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s by t h e p l a i n t i f f and t h e d e f e n d a n t s 1 answers t h e r e t o , and a n a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of t h e motion e x e c u t e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f . The d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o c o n d u c t any d i s c o v e r y of t h e i r own, and f a i l e d t o f i l e any a f f i d a v i t s i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e motion f o r summary judgment. Summary judgment i s a p p r o p r i a t e when t h e moving p a r t y shows a complete a b s e n c e of any g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o a l l f a c t s which a r e m a t e r i a l i n l i g h t of t h o s e s u b s t a n t i v e p r i n c i p l e s which e n t i t l e him t o a judgment as a m a t t e r o f law; and when t h e d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o come forward w i t h e v i d e n c e of a g e n u i n e i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . The p l e a d i n g s , r e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s s i o n s , and a f f i d a v i t s e s t a b l i s h e d t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t s : The l e a s e was e x e c u t e d (def e n d a n t s ' answer t o r e q u e s t no. 1, d a t e d J a n u a r y 1 8 , 1 9 8 0 ) ; d e f e n d a n t Charl-es R. T a y l o r was s e r v e d w i t h a n o t i c e of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s e x e r c i s e of h i s o p t i o n , such s e r v i c e accomplished a t h i s r e s i d e n c e w i t h i n t h e f i r s t t e n d a y s of December 1979 (answers t o r e q u e s t no. 2 dated January 18, 1980); t h e p l a i n t i f f a l s o n o t i f i e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s of h i s e x e r c i s e of t h e o p t i o n w i t h i n t h e f i r s t t e n d a y s o f December 1979, by w r i t i n g a d d r e s s e d t o them a t t h e i r a d d r e s s i n Moore, Montana ( a f f i d a v i t of Guy M . W i l l s o n d a t e d J u n e 30, 1 9 8 0 ) ; t h e a d u l t d e f e n d a n t s were r e s i d i n g t o g e t h e r i n Moore d u r i n g t h a t time (answer t o r e q u e s t no. 6 ) ; t h e p l a i n t i f f t e n d e r e d t h e r e q u i r e d downpayment w i t h i n t h e t i m e s p e c i f i e d i n t h e o p t i o n ( a f f i d a v i t o f J u n e 30, 1980) ; t h e def e n d a n t s e x e c u t e d a new mortgage on t h e s u b j e c t l a n d s on December 1 0 , 1979, i n f a v o r of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s of America, t h r o u g h t h e FHA, t o s e c u r e t h e repayment of a l o a n i n t h e amount of $190,000, which mortgage was u n r e l e a s e d a s of J a n u a r y 30, 1980 (answers t o r e q u e s t s no. 1 4 and no. 1 5 , d a t e d J a n u a r y 30, 1 9 8 0 ) ; t h e d e f e n d a n t s e x e c u t e d a n a d d i t i o n a l mortgage on t h e l a n d s i n f a v o r of Northwestern Bank of Lewistown t o s e c u r e repayment of a l o a n i n t h e amount of $126,800 which was u n r e - l e a s e d a s of J a n u a r y 30, 1980 (answers t o r e q u e s t s no. 16 and no. 1 7 , d a t e d J a n u a r y 30, 1 9 8 0 ) ; t h e d e f e n d a n t s conveyed m i n e r a l i n t e r e s t s i n t h e l a n d t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n a s a g i f t and w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r a t i o n by q u i t c l a i m deed d a t e d November 30, 1979 (answers t o r e q u e s t no. 5 of J a n u a r y 1 8 , 1 9 8 0 ) ; t h e p l a i n t i f f p a i d t h e b a l a n c e of t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e i n t h e amount of $90,652.80 i n t o c o u r t by o r d e r d a t e d A p r i l 11, 1980; and, none of t h e d e f e n d a n t s e v e r a d v i s e d t h e p l a i n t i f f t h a t h i s t e n d e r of t h e downpayment w a s d e f e c t i v e (answer t o r e q u e s t no. 1 9 , d a t e d J a n u a r y 30, 1 9 8 0 ) . The d e f e n d a n t s a s s e r t t h a t t h e i s s u e s whether t h e p l a i n t i f f p r o p e r l y n o t i f i e d them of h i s e x e r c i s e of t h e o p t i o n and whether t h e t e n d e r was s u f f i c i e n t t o r a i s e m a t e r i a l i s s u e s of f a c t . T h e i r answers t o t h e r e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s s i o n s s t a t e t h a t t h e postmarks on t h e l e t t e r s a r e a l l i l l e g i b l e , s o t h a t t h e y a r e n o t s u r e of t h e d a t e s on which t h e y r e c e i v e d n o t i c e ; a l s o , t h a t n o t i c e was s e r v e d o n l y on C h a r l e s R . T a y l o r and was n o t s e r v e d on P h y l l i s A. T a y l o r . However, t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s a f f i d a v i t of June 30, 1980, s t a t e s t h a t h e d i d make t i m e l y n o t i f i c a t i o n and d i d t e n d e r t h e downpayment properly. " ' [Tlhe opposing p a r t y ' s f a c t s must be m a t e r i a l and of a s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e , n o t f a n c i f u l , f r i v o l o u s , gauzy, nor merely s u s p i c i o u s . ' " Harland v . Anderson, s u p r a . The d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o come forward w i t h t h e i r own a f f i d a v i t s i n d i s p u t e of p l a i n t i f f ' s averments. For t h a t r e a s o n , summary judgment on c o u n t one w a s p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d . W e a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . W Concur: e % -4 d,psuChief J u s t i c e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.