Bagley v. Clark

• Decision Date: 19 March 1948
• Docket Number: 117.
• Parties: BAGLEY et al. v. CLARK et al.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

57 A.2d 739

190 Md. 223

BAGLEY et al. v. CLARK et al.

No. 117.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 19, 1948

Appeal from Circuit Court, Baltimore County; J. Howard Murray Judge.

Suit for specific performance by Keith R. Clark and Jane E. Clark against Walter E. Bagley and Ernestine G. Bagley to require defendants to convey certain realty to the plaintiffs pursuant to an option contained in a lease. From a decree for the plaintiffs, the defendants appealed.

Affirmed.

Charles C. Lyons, of Towson, for appellants.

J Nicholas Shriver, Jr., of Baltimore (Cross & Shriver, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.

HENDERSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree of specific performance requiring the appellants to convey to the appellees the premises 8527 Pleasant Plains Road, Towson, subject to an annual ground rent of $78, pursuant to an option contained in a lease from Better Housing, Inc., to the appellees, dated February 12 1944.

The lease was for one year at a total rental of $570, payable in equal monthly installments. It contained a clause providing 'It is further agreed that said tenants * * * have the option of purchasing this dwelling at a price of $4700.00 subject to an annual ground rent of $78.00 any time during the life of this lease after February 12, 1944. Terms of such sale to be submitted in the form of Contract of Sale and subject to approval of F. H. A.' The ground rent referred to had been duly created before the lease was executed. The appellees held over at the end of the term, February 11 1945. In December, 1945, the lessor assigned the leasehold title to the appellants, who continued to accept rentals from the appellees at the rate fixed by the lease, and made no inquiry as to their rights under the lease. On November 14, 1946, the appellees gave notice of their desire to exercise the option, to execute a contract of sale, and 'to make payment in full of the balance of the purchase price at such date and place as may be mutually agreeable.'

The lease in question is identical with the one before this Court on demurrer in the recent case of Gressitt v. Anderson, Md., 51 A.2d 159. We held that the tenants in that case, holding over with the tacit consent of the landlord, became tenants from year to year, and that the option to purchase during the term of the original lease carried over into the subsequent tenancy. We further held that the offer to pay cash made the time of settlement certain and eliminated any question of credit in the terms of the sale. Upon the question as to uncertainly due to the requirement of F.H.A. approval, we said: 'We are unable to determine from the words of the option what is meant by requiring the approval of the F. H. A. to the option. It may be that these houses were held subject to some restrictions of the Federal Housing Administration and are still subject to these limitations. * * * There are also possible questions involved as...