Blondell v. Turover

• Decision Date: 19 April 1950
• Docket Number: 118.
• Parties: BLONDELL et al. v. TUROVER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

72 A.2d 697

195 Md. 251

BLONDELL et al. v. TUROVER.

No. 118.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 19, 1950

Joseph J. Blondell, and Gordon Louk, in pro. per.

Nicholas Orem, Jr., Washington, D. C., (T. Howard Duckett Hyattsville, on the brief), for appellee.

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

DELAPLAINE, Judge.

This is a suit for specific performance brought by Isadore S. Turover, of Washington, against Joseph J. Blondell and Gordon Louk holders of title to a tract of 3 1/2 acres of unimproved land near Kenilworth Avenue in Prince George's County. Defendants, who are salesmen for Dunn & Company, a real estate firm, of Mount Rainier, are appealing here from a decree annulling their deed for the land and ordering them to convey it to complainant.

The property was conveyed to defendants by Victoria I. Leapley and Charles E Leapley, her husband, in June, 1946. In March, 1946, Louk called to see Mrs. Leapley with the object of acquiring a portion of her land. A freight line of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad runs across her land, and she and her husband reside on the remaining portion of the land on the opposite side of the railroad track. On March 27 Mrs. Leapley signed a sale listing card giving Dunn & Company the exclusive right to sell the tract at not less than $1,500 per acre, less commission of 10 per cent. Louk obtained this listing in order to sell the tract to Blondell and a client, but the client did not enter the deal on account of difficulty in financing it. It was claimed that Blondell signed the contract to buy the property on March 27, but his check for $100 in part payment was dated April 5 and was not deposited until April 23. In any event, when the contract was submitted to Mrs. Leapley, she refused to sign it. On April 25 Leo W. Dunn, of Dunn & Company, wrote her a letter warning her that, while she could refuse to sell, she would be liable for the amount of the commission. He demanded $450 in case she refused to sell. As the result of this letter and further inducements, Mrs. Leapley and her husband executed the contract of sale on May 20. Inasmuch as the client did not enter the transaction, Blondell agreed to let Louk participate in it. On June 13 the Leapleys executed the deed conveying the tract to Blondell and Louk for $5,304 less commission.

In the meantime Edward N. Lightbown, a real estate broker, of Brentwood, visited Mrs. Leapley and her husband with the object of acquiring the tract for complainant. On April 4 they signed a contract giving complainant an option to buy the tract at $1,500 per acre, with the proviso that if satisfactory arrangements could not be made for an outlet to Tuxedo Road or Frohlich Lane, or if the property could not be zoned for industrial use, then complainant was not obligated to buy it. The Leapleys signed three copies of the contract, one of which was left with them. Lightbown took the other two copies to complainant. On April 12 complainant signed the two copies. He kept one, and Lightbown returned the other on the same day to the Leapleys, getting back the one he had left with them. Complainant arranged for an outlet by getting an option to buy adjoining land abutting on Tuxedo Road, and also made application to have the tract rezoned from residential to industrial. On June 25 it was rezoned industrial. Complainant gave Lightbown a check for $500 to be delivered to the Leapleys in part payment of the purchase price. Shortly afterwards Louk informed Lightbown that the Leapleys had sold their property. Lightbown accordingly returned the check to complainant, but complainant learned that the Leapleys had conveyed the tract to defendants. Complainant's option did not expire until July 19. On July 17 he notified the Leapleys that he elected to exercise the option.

The law is plain that specific performance of a contract for the purchase of real estate based upon an option is invoked, not on the theory that the option itself is enforceable, but on the theory that the option is a continuing offer to sell and, when duly exercised by the optionee, becomes an enforceable contract. When an optionee signifies his intention to exercise the option, and tenders the amount of the purchase price, if required, he is entitled to specific performance of the contract. Brewer v. Sowers, 118 Md. 681, 688, 86 A. 228; Trotter v. Lewis, 185 Md. 528, 534, 45 A.2d 329. Nevertheless, an option is not a mere offer to sell, which can be withdrawn by the optionor at any time before acceptance, but a binding agreement if supported by consideration.

In Thistle Mills Co. v. Bone, 92 Md. 47, 48 A. 37, this Court said that when an owner of land gives to one person an option to buy it, and the option is exercised within the time limited another person to whom the owner subsquently agrees to sell it is...