Gould v. Kenneymoore, 47927

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WESTHUES
• Citation: Gould v. Kenneymoore, 339 S.W.2d 786 (Mo. 1960)
• Decision Date: 14 November 1960
• Docket Number: No. 47927,No. 1,47927,1
• Parties: Sam GOULD and Lucy Gould, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. George L. KENNEYMOORE and Jean Kenneymoore, Defendants-Appellants

Page 786

339 S.W.2d 786

Sam GOULD and Lucy Gould, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. George L. KENNEYMOORE and Jean Kenneymoore, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 47927.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

Nov. 14, 1960.

Butler Disman, Herbert Jacob, Kansas City, for plaintiffs-resondents.

Marion D. Waltner, Kansas City, for defendants-appellants, Clarence C. Chilcott, Kansas City, of counsel.

WESTHUES, Presiding Judge.

This is a suit to enforce specific performance of a contract to sell real estate. The trial court granted the relief prayed for and the defendants appealed.

The contract sought to be enforced was dated January 21, 1958, and involved property known as 2107 Brooklyn Street, Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. The consideration was $8,000. The property was covered by a deed of trust securing the payment of a note of about $3,600 made payable to the Home Federal Savings and Loan Association. Plaintiff Sam Gould had, prior to 1958, engaged in the business of operating parking lots in the neighborhood of the ball park used by the American League baseball teams. The purpose for which Sam Gould desired the property in question (located near the park) was to extend his parking facilities.

In the answer, defendants stated that they were uneducated, inexperienced, and unfamiliar with real estate values; that plaintiff Sam Gould by 'high Pressure' talk induced plaintiffs to sign the sales contract; that the property was actually worth $15,500; that the representation made by Sam Gould concerning the value of the property was false and that plaintiffs were defrauded. Defendants further alleged that the description of the property in the contract embraced more land than defendants owned.

Defendants filed a counterclaim wherein they asked the court for a judgment in the sum of $7,500 actual damages on the theory that the present suit deprived them of accepting a bid of $15,500 for the property. Defendants further ask $7,500 in punitive damages.

This is a nonjury case and is therefore reviewable on the merits by an appellate court. Our examination of the record and the evidence has convinced us that the trial court's judgment enforcing the contract was fully justified.

The major portion of the following statement of facts has been taken from the defendants' evidence. Defendants purchased the property in 1944 for $2,000 and lived there up to the time this case was tried. Defendants did not claim that any substantial improvements were made. In December, 1957, plaintiff Sam Gould called defendants by telephone and inquired if their property was for sale. Mrs. Kenneymoore informed him that it was not. Gould gave defendants his telephone number and told Mrs. Kenneymoore that in case they changed their minds to call him. Later, in January, 1958, Gould again talked with the defendants by telephone and an appointment was made for Gould to come to the Kenneymoore home to talk about a sale of the property. Mrs. Kenneymoore testified that she told Gould the sale price was $16,000. Gould stated that $14,000 was asked. After some discussion, Gould informed defendants that $8,000 was his top price and that the property was not worth more and if anyone offered more he was just fooling.

A daughter of the defendants, who was present at this meeting, advised her parents that they had better see a lawyer but Mrs. Kenneymoore stated plaintiff Sam Gould claimed he knew the values of real estate and that she relied on his statements. Gould denied that he, as the Kenneymoores claimed, advised against seeing a lawyer.

The Kenneymoores admitted foreclosure proceedings had been threatened and that they needed money to make a payment on their indebtedness. After some negotiation, a contract of sale was signed and Gould gave the defendants $300 as a down payment.

The building was to be torn down so the defendants requested permission to remove some fixtures from the home. This they did. Further, the defendants endeavored to purchase a home but were unable to obtain sufficient money to make the deal. Demand was made a number of times on the defendants to comply with their contract of sale to Gould. No definite answer was made to these demands. Later, a tender of the purchase price was made which the defendants refused; whereupon this suit was filed.

The reason given at the trial for refusing to comply with the contract was stated by Mrs. Kenneymoore as follows:

'Q. Now, is it true that you are now refusing to go through with this contract? Are you refusing now to go through with the contract? A. Yes.

'Q. Tell his Honor why. A. Well, one thing, after talking, and reading, and getting understanding. I didn't understand it. One thing, he got more land on here than we got. We didn't have that much land, and another thing, my husband don't have anywhere to put his trucks, and his cars, and the money that we would be getting out of the place would not be enough to buy no place for him to put his stuff.'

Mr. C. S. Ehinger testified for the defendants. He stated that in April, 1958, which was more than two months after the contract now before the court was signed, he offered defendants $12,500 for the property. The evidence showed that Ehinger owned property near the ball park which was used as a parking lot and he wanted to use this property for the same purpose.

Mr. Kenneymoore testified that he had had twenty-five people call about purchasing the property. Many of these calls were made before the present contract was signed. He further testified that in 1952 Mr. Ehinger told him 'if I wanted to sell he would buy.'

Evidence was offered by the defendants that the property was...