Cox v. Bertsch
| Decision Date | 25 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84CA0116,84CA0116 |
| Citation | 730 P.2d 889 |
| Parties | Lee COX and Sherry Lynn Smith formerly known as Sherry Lynn Day and Sherry Lynn Cox, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Gerard C. BERTSCH, Ruth Ann Bertsch and Neal E. Black, Defendants-Appellants. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
John S. Retrum, Lakewood, for plaintiffs-appellees.
A. Daniel Rooney, Aurora, for defendants-appellants Gerard C. and Ruth Ann Bertsch.
Robert E. Keating (on the briefs).
Neal E. Black, pro se.
The defendants, Neal E. Black, Gerard C. Bertsch, and Ruth Ann Bertsch, appeal from a judgment which awarded specific performance of a real estate sales contract and exemplary damages to plaintiffs, Lee Cox and Sherry Lynn Smith, purchasers. We affirm in part and remand with directions.
In November 1975, the Bertsches orally agreed to convey two adjoining lots to the purchasers. One lot was vacant, but a house had been built on the other. The purchase price was $29,544.12. Of this amount, $19,544.12 represented the amount owing on a promissory note secured by a deed of trust in favor of National Mortgage Company. In payment of the remaining $10,000, the purchasers made a down payment of $2,000, and orally promised to pay the remaining $8,000 from time to time within ten years with interest at 12% per annum. It was agreed that title to the vacant lot would be conveyed to purchasers when they had paid the next $3,000 due on the principal and that they would receive title to the improved lot when the entire $10,000 was paid.
The purchasers took possession of the property and lived in it or leased it until the date of trial. They made all payments of principal and interest due under the promissory note to National Mortgage Company until July 1979. They made no payments to National Mortgage Company after that time because they were advised that title had been transferred. The purchasers also paid $1,800 toward the principal on the oral obligation owing to the Bertsches to pay off the principal within ten years. In addition, purchasers made improvements valued at $6,174.50 upon the already improved property.
In January 1979, the Bertsches purchased a business from defendant Black. However, the Bertsches were not able to comply with the terms of their agreement. The Bertsches approached purchasers in an attempt to obtain money to pay Black. He offered to give them the vacant lot if they would give up the improved one, but they refused. The Bertsches then offered to discount the parties' agreement to half-price upon payment of which he would give purchasers title to both parcels. Being unable to raise the necessary cash, purchasers again refused. Under pressure from Black, the Bertsches then agreed to convey the properties to him in return for cancellation of the amount owed under their agreement. Black agreed and the Bertsches conveyed title to him in August 1979 by Warranty Deed which made no reference to any outstanding interest of the purchasers in the property.
The purchasers filed this suit seeking damages under, or specific performance of, their agreement with the Bertsches. They also claimed that Black had intentionally interfered with that agreement, and, on the basis that both he and Bertsch had acted with wanton and reckless disregard of their rights, they sought exemplary damages. After trial, the court found that plaintiffs and the Bertsches had entered into an oral agreement upon the terms related above and that the Bertsches had breached it. It further found that Black knew of the purchasers' agreement with the Bertsches and of their rights thereunder before he agreed to accept the property as settlement of the debt owed him by the Bertsches. Black was found to have induced the Bertsches' breach thereby intentionally interferring with their contract with the purchasers. The trial court found wanton and reckless conduct by all defendants.
Concluding that the purchasers had proved substantial part performance of their contract with the Bertsches, that they had sustained actual damages in the amount of $10,456, that they were entitled to specific performance, and that this remedy would adequately compensate them for their actual damages, the trial court entered judgment for the purchasers on their claim for specific performance. It also awarded $5,000 as exemplary damages against the Bertsches and $5,000 against Black.
On appeal, defendants first contend that the trial court erred in decreeing specific performance because the time for full performance of the contract had not yet arrived. The purchasers respond that this argument is foreclosed on appeal because it was not adequately raised in the trial court. We conclude that the memorandum accompanying the Bertsches' motion for new trial sufficiently preserved the issue for review and therefore address the merits of the contention. We therefore address defendants' contention and agree with it.
A trial court may decree specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of realty in favor of one who has partly performed its terms. See Siler v. Investment Securities, Co., 125 Colo. 438, 244 P.2d 877 (1952). All essential terms of such a contract must be shown to be definite, certain, clear, and unambiguous. Mestas v. Martini, 113 Colo. 108, 155 P.2d 161 (1944). Specific performance must, however, be accomplished according to the terms of the parties' contract; a court may not make a contract for the parties and then order it specifically performed. See Shull v. Sexton, 154 Colo. 311, 390 P.2d 313 (1964); D. Dobbs, Remedies § 12.10 (1973).
The trial court's determination of the terms of this contract, including the ten-year payment term, is supported by the evidence. The record also supports the trial court's determination that purchasers had proved part performance and that they were entitled to specific performance.
However, we agree with defendants that, by the terms of the agreement as found by the court, the Bertsches were not obligated to convey title to the properties until the purchasers had paid them the full amount due thereunder. The court found that $6,200 remains to be paid, but the record does not reflect that payment was ordered or, in fact, made. Therefore, upon remand, the trial court should amend its judgment to conform to the agreement it has ordered performed or enter sufficiently explicit findings to explain its disposition of the $6,200.
Evidence adduced at trial indicated that Black had paid $10,600 to National Mortgage Company on the promissory note during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ballow v. PHICO Ins. Co., 92SC530
... ... Snyder v. Sullivan, 705 P.2d 510, 513 (Colo.1985); Thurmon v. Skipton, 157 Colo. 423, 431, 403 P.2d 211, 215 (1965); 5A Corbin on Contracts § 1138 (1964). However, specific performance can only be accomplished according to the terms of the parties' contract. Cox v. Bertsch, 730 P.2d 889, 892 (Colo.App.1986); Otis Oil & Gas Corp. v. Maier, 74 Wyo. 137, 284 P.2d 653, 656 (1955). A court may not make a contract for the parties and then order it to be specifically performed. D.H. Overmyer Co. v. Brown, 439 F.2d 926, 929 (10th Cir.1971); Shull v. Sexton, 154 Colo ... ...
-
Mortgage Finance, Inc. v. Podleski
... ... 4 The trial court also merged the two forms of damages. See supra note 1 ... 5 We note that the court of appeals has also recently interpreted the punitive damages statute contrary to the position set forth by this court with regard to equity actions. In Cox v. Bertsch, 730 P.2d 889 (Colo.App.1986), the court of appeals stated that "in recognition of the merger of law and equity, the modern trend is to allow exemplary damages in addition to equitable relief where injury is caused by a tort." 730 P.2d at 892-93. The court of appeals went on to hold that "the ... ...
-
Postal Instant Press v. Jackson
... ... at 1009, citing Podleski ... Finally, the Davies rule was invoked in Cox v. Bertsch, 730 P.2d 889 (Colo.App. 1986). In that case, plaintiffs were awarded specific performance of a real estate sales contract and also exemplary damages. In affirming the award of exemplary damages despite the absence of an award of actual damages, the Cox court cited Podleski and Collister for ... ...
-
Schreck v. T & C Sanderson Farms, Inc.
... ... Hill v. Chambers, 136 Colo. 129, 314 P.2d 707 (1957) ... Contracts must be reasonably certain to justify a decree of specific performance. Courts cannot make contracts for parties and then order them specifically performed. Cox v. Bertsch, 730 P.2d 889 (Colo. App.1986). Thus, the indefiniteness of a contract is an adequate reason to refuse specific performance. The contract itself must make the precise act to be done clearly ascertainable. It is fundamental that to enable the court to decree specific performance, the terms of the ... ...
-
Rule 15 AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS.
...are tried by express or implied consent of the parties. Haffke v. Linker, 30 Colo. App. 76, 489 P.2d 1047 (1971); Cox v. Bertsch, 730 P.2d 889 (Colo. App. 1986). This rule directs that amendment of pleadings to conform to the evidence be freely granted. Schwab v. Martin, 165 Colo. 547, 441 ......
-
Chapter 17 - § 17.7 • TERMINATION AND BREACH OF CONTRACT
...159 P.2d 912 (Colo. 1945). [330] Shull v. Sexton, 390 P.2d 313 (Colo. 1964); Berdineau v. Schock, 121 P. 146 (Colo. 1912); Cox v. Bertsch, 730 P.2d 889 (Colo. App. 1986).[331] Hearne v. Milliken, 198 P. 432 (Colo. 1921) (judgment creditor of vendor).[332] Ross v. Purse, 28 P. 473 (Colo. 189......
-
Letters of Intent: Are They Binding?
...court held that making the escrow deposit was not sufficient past performance. 29. See Mestas, supra, note 3 at 164, 169; Cox v. Bertsch, 730 P.2d 889, 890 (Colo.App. 1986). 30. See A&R Co. v. Union Air Transport, Inc., 738 P.2d 73, 74 (Colo.App. 1987), using the classic example of taking p......