Basso v. Manlin, No. 62599
| Decision Date | 23 November 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 62599 |
| Parties | Louis N. BASSO and Joanne Basso, Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellants, v. Richard MANLIN and Vernon Gaskell, Defendants/Respondents/Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert C. Jones, Jr., William Laird Hetlage, St. Louis, for appellants.
Andrew R. Kasnetz, Paul N. Rechenberg, Jack Spooner, St. Louis, for respondents.
Plaintiffs, Louis and Joanne Basso, and defendants, Richard Manlin and Vernon Gaskell, a Missouri general partnership, appeal from the trial court's judgment dismissing both parties' claims under a real estate contract.
On November 6, 1988, the Bassos entered into a contract with Manlin & Gaskell for the sale of a home located on a one-acre lot in Sackston Woods, an undeveloped subdivision in Creve Coeur, Missouri. The Bassos paid a $25,000 earnest money deposit into an escrow account and agreed to pay an additional $390,000 on November 1, 1989, the date set for closing the contract. They also took possession of the home and made monthly interest payments of $1,950 until the closing date and made a one-time payment of $402.36 for real estate taxes.
Pursuant to the contract, Manlin & Gaskell agreed to cure a number of defects in the realty, including: (1) fixing or replacing broken fence sections in the back yard within two weeks of the execution of the contract; (2) repairing or removing a diseased tree in the back yard; (3) surveying and staking the corners of the lot; and (4) maintaining water-catch basins and storm sewers on and near the property until they completed their development of the subdivision. The contract further provided that Manlin & Gaskell would indemnify the Bassos for all maintenance, repairs, claims, losses or expenses in regard to maintaining the water-catch basins and storm sewers.
By the closing date, however, Manlin & Gaskell failed to fully perform these promises. They repaired only a portion of the fence, they never repaired or removed the tree, and they failed to survey and stake the Bassos' lot. Furthermore, Manlin & Gaskell failed to continuously maintain the water basin and sewers. The remaining lots in Sackston Woods are higher than the Bassos' lot. After Manlin & Gaskell graded the upper lots, they built a riprap slough to catch and drain runoff water and silt from the higher lots across the Bassos' lot and into a neighbor's yard. In 1989, Manlin & Gaskell cleaned the slough and storm sewers two or three times. Manlin testified that after the vegetation grew back on the upper lots, the runoff water and silt declined, abating the need to clean the basin and sewers. The Bassos, however, testified that Manlin & Gaskell only cleaned the basin and sewers one time and during and after rain showers silt would fill up or block the basin and sewers, causing flooding and siltation on the front, side and back yards.
The Bassos repeatedly demanded, through various agents of the partnership, that Manlin & Gaskell repair these defects. In a letter dated October 20, 1989, the Bassos outlined the problems they had with the property and indicated they were not going to close on the contract. The Bassos refused to tender the $390,000 balance of the purchase price due under the contract on November 1, 1989. The Bassos then remained in possession of the land until January 6, 1990, without making any further payments.
Pursuant to the contract, Manlin & Gaskell notified the Bassos in a letter dated November 2, 1989, that they were in default under the contract and had 10 days to cure the default. The Bassos failed to cure the default, and by December 18 they had not vacated the premises, prompting Manlin & Gaskell to file an unlawful detainer action in which the partnership alleged damages of $128.50 per day for every day the Bassos maintained possession of the realty beyond the closing date plus $3,908.54 for monthly rents and profits. The Bassos then filed an action in January 1990 to rescind the contract, alleging that Manlin & Gaskell breached the contract by failing to perform their duties and by misrepresenting that a gas grill and alarm system in the house worked properly and that they had repaired a leak in a room in the house. Manlin & Gaskell counterclaimed that the Bassos' failure to close on the contract amounted to breach of contract, entitling the partnership to the $25,000 earnest deposit for damages plus an assessment against the Bassos for various costs. Alternatively, Manlin & Gaskell claimed damages in quantum meruit for permitting the Bassos to use the Sackston Woods home for one year and damages for the Bassos' fraudulent misrepresentation that they would close on the contract on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hostler v. Green Park Development Co.
...claims created an irreconcilable conflict between the implicit findings required to support the court's conclusions. See Basso v. Manlin, 865 S.W.2d 431 (Mo.App.1993). After reviewing the claims, judgment and evidence adduced, we find no irreconcilable conflict; Basso does not Lawless Homes......
-
Evans v. Evans
...legal reconciliation of this inconsistency. Mutually inconsistent factual findings cannot support the judgment. See Basso v. Manlin, 865 S.W.2d 431, 433-34 (Mo. App. 1993). We must therefore reverse to permit the trial court to reconsider its inconsistent findings concerning imputation of i......
-
Gant v. Gant, WD
...facts, we will not presume from the trial judge's silence that he found that no domestic violence had occurred. Cf. Basso v. Manlin, 865 S.W.2d 431, 433 (Mo.App.1993) (the presumption of findings in accordance with the result reached is defeated when the implicit findings present irreconcil......