Johnson v. Soulis, No. 4458

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
Writing for the CourtBefore GUTHRIE; THOMAS
Citation542 P.2d 867
PartiesA. J. JOHNSON, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. Nick SOULIS and Catherine Soulis, Appellees (Defendants below).
Docket NumberNo. 4458
Decision Date21 November 1975

Page 867

542 P.2d 867
A. J. JOHNSON, Appellant (Plaintiff below),
v.
Nick SOULIS and Catherine Soulis, Appellees (Defendants below).
No. 4458.
Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Nov. 21, 1975.

Page 869

Terry W. Mackey of Urbigkit, Moriarity, Halle & Mackey, Cheyenne, for appellant.

Bard Ferrall, Cheyenne, for appellees.

Before GUTHRIE, C. J., and THOMAS and ROSE, JJ.

THOMAS, Justice.

A. J. Johnson brought this action in the district court against Nick Soulis and Catherine Soulis seeking relief in the form of recission of a sale of an apartment house, damages for loss of income, and punitive damages, and asserting as grounds for such relief fraud and undue influence. A. J. Johnson and Nick Soulis were the active participants in the transaction, and Catherine Soulis appears as a party only because she was named as one of the grantees in the deed to the apartment house. The parties hereafter will be referred to simply as Johnson and Soulis.

In his Amended Complaint Johnson set forth the following allegations of fraud:

'3. That during the course of such negotiations, defendant Nick Soulis made representations to plaintiff, representing that economic conditions were very bad, representing that he would provide plaintiff with an income of $700.00 per month, that he would pay the outstanding mortgage against the premises, that he would permit plaintiff to live in the premises at the rate of $123.00 per month, represented to plaintiff that he would not need an attorney or real estate broker, all of which representations were false, fraudulent, and upon which representations plaintiff relied to his detriment.

* * *

* * *

'13. That defendant Nick Soulis willfully and deliberately misled plaintiff by representing to plaintiff that he could reside on the above described real property for his lifetime at a rental amount of $123.00 per month, that plaintiff would receive the sum of $700.00 per month free and clear of any and all other obligations relating to said real property, that economic conditions were such that the value of said real property was decreasing and would not increase, and the purpose of such action on the part of defendant Nick Soulis was to obtain the aforesaid real property at a price which was far below the value of said real property.'

Johnson alleged undue influence in the following language:

'9. That during the period of negotiations prior to sale by plaintiff to defendants, defendant Nick Soulis did by visitation to plaintiff, by advising plaintiff about economic conditions, by representations of defendant Nick Soulis' economic acumen, by representations that plaintiff would not need a real estate broker or independent attorney and other words, deeds and acts, unduly influenced plaintiff to plaintiff's detriment.'

The events out of which this case arose had their inception in March of 1972 when Soulis and a business associate saw a realtor's advertisement for the sale of an apartment house. Without contacting the realtor they went to see the property, and at that time they discussed the sale of the apartment house with Johnson who identified himself as the owner. There were at least six other meetings at Johnson's apartment house between Soulis and Johnson after this initial contact. In addition,

Page 870

there were telephone conversations between Soulis and Johnson which related to the sale of the apartment house. This series of contacts and negotiations continued for more than a year until sometime in May of 1973. Then in a telephone conversation Johnson informed Soulis that an owner of some similar property adjacent to Johnson's had told Johnson he would give Johnson $97,500 and better for Johnson's property. Soulis then went to Johnson's apartment building and made a final offer of $100,000. There was a discussion relative to the specific terms of the transaction, and Soulis suggested that Johnson select an attorney to prepare the requisite instruments to formalize the transaction. Johnson did not have an attorney, and indicated he had no preference, so Soulis selected the attorney.

On May 31, 1973, a 'Standard Purchase Offer, Acceptance and Receipt' was executed by Johnson and Soulis providing for the sale of the apartment house by Johnson to Soulis. The purchase price established by the agreement was $100,000 to be paid by a $500 deposit, a $19,500 bank draft payable at the time of closing, the assumption by Soulis of an existing loan with the Prudential Insurance Company of America, with a balance of $45,246.92; and a note for the balance of the purchase price from Soulis to Johnson with interest at seven per cent payable monthly over a thirty-year period. Following the execution of this contract Johnson on July 1, 1973 executed a warranty deed to Soulis, and at the same time a note and mortgage were executed by Soulis in favor of Johnson in the principal amount of $34,957.05 with monthly payments of $270.78. The monthly payment was adjusted to provide for a payout over a twenty-year period instead of the thirty-year period provided in the contract because Johnson had asserted at the time the contract was executed that he was to receive $700 per month, and he then was informed by the attorney that the $700 per month was to make the payments on both the Prudential mortgage and the balance owed to Johnson.

Prior to the preparation of the 'Standard Purchase Offer, Acceptance and Receipt,' Johnson and Soulis had reached an understanding that Johnson could continue to reside in his apartment at a rental of $123 per month, but that in addition he would be expected to maintain the lawn and look after the place, the contemplated rental for the other tenants being $150 per month. About mid-July Soulis advised Johnson that his rent, beginning August 1, 1973, would be $150 per month because it appeared to Soulis that Johnson was not keeping up the lawn. On August 22, 1973, Johnson, through counsel, demanded reconveyance of the apartment house and tendered the return of the purchase price and the down payment. The reasons stated for the demand, while somewhat detailed, were essentially fraud and undue influence.

In October this action was filed, and Soulis answered the Amended Complaint, denying the averments of fraud and undue influence. A pre-trial conference was held which did not substantially narrow the issues posed by the pleadings. The depositions of both Soulis and Johnson then were taken in accordance with the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, after which Soulis filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants. Following the hearing on Soulis' motion the district court entered the Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment and Judgment from which Johnson has appealed.

In this Court Johnson contends that it was inappropriate for the district court to grant the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants because there were genuine issues as to material facts requiring that the case be tried. In his brief and argument Johnson asserts a genuine issue of material fact with respect to his claim that he was to receive $700 per month from Soulis if he sold the apartment house to him. Johnson also refers to other events as to which the record fails to disclose any

Page 871

issue with respect to the facts, including Johnson's reluctance to sell to Soulis after many meetings; Soulis' arrangements for an attorney who prepared the documents involved in the transaction; Johnson's raising of his question as to the $700 monthly figure which resulted in the mortgage term being reduced from thirty to twenty years; the arrangement between Soulis and Johnson for Johnson to remain in his apartment at a rental less than other tenants which was terminated within a month after the sale; and the receipt by Soulis of some of Johnson's personal property without payment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
129 practice notes
  • Walsh v. Walsh, No. 90-192
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • November 20, 1992
    ...in the exercise of any wrongful persuasion or persuasion of any kind. We discussed the effect of undue influence in Johnson v. Soulis, 542 P.2d 867, 874 (Wyo.1975) (quoting A.L.I. Restatement, Contracts § 497 (1932)): "Where one party is under the domination of another, or by virtue of the ......
  • MacGuire v. Harriscope Broadcasting Co., Nos. 5051
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • May 14, 1980
    ...if there are any issues of material fact. Weaver v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Wyoming, Wyo., 609 P.2d 984 (1980); Johnson v. Soulis, Wyo., 542 P.2d 867 (1975). It then should examine the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and give the plaintiff the benefit of any inferences......
  • Vance v. Latimer, No. 08-CV-10632-DT.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • August 11, 2009
    ...affect [the] application of appropriate principle[s] of law to the rights and obligations of the parties.") (citing Johnson v. Soulis, 542 P.2d 867, 872 (Wyo.1975)) (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 881 (6th ed. 1979)). 3. Doc. Ent. 1 at 32; 25 U.S.C. § 1746 ("Unsworn declarations under penal......
  • Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-01363-BLF
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • August 15, 2016
    ...Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co., 889 P.2d 285, 287 (Okla. 1995); Spence v. Griffin, 372 S.E.2d 595, 598 (Va. 1988); Johnson v. Soulis, 542 P.2d 867, 872 (Wyo. 1975). The burden of proof for fraud claims also differs: California's standard is a preponderance of the evidence, but most states dema......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
129 cases
  • Walsh v. Walsh, No. 90-192
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • November 20, 1992
    ...in the exercise of any wrongful persuasion or persuasion of any kind. We discussed the effect of undue influence in Johnson v. Soulis, 542 P.2d 867, 874 (Wyo.1975) (quoting A.L.I. Restatement, Contracts § 497 (1932)): "Where one party is under the domination of another, or by virtue of the ......
  • MacGuire v. Harriscope Broadcasting Co., Nos. 5051
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • May 14, 1980
    ...if there are any issues of material fact. Weaver v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Wyoming, Wyo., 609 P.2d 984 (1980); Johnson v. Soulis, Wyo., 542 P.2d 867 (1975). It then should examine the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and give the plaintiff the benefit of any inferences......
  • Vance v. Latimer, No. 08-CV-10632-DT.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • August 11, 2009
    ...affect [the] application of appropriate principle[s] of law to the rights and obligations of the parties.") (citing Johnson v. Soulis, 542 P.2d 867, 872 (Wyo.1975)) (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 881 (6th ed. 1979)). 3. Doc. Ent. 1 at 32; 25 U.S.C. § 1746 ("Unsworn declarations under penal......
  • Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-01363-BLF
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • August 15, 2016
    ...Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co., 889 P.2d 285, 287 (Okla. 1995); Spence v. Griffin, 372 S.E.2d 595, 598 (Va. 1988); Johnson v. Soulis, 542 P.2d 867, 872 (Wyo. 1975). The burden of proof for fraud claims also differs: California's standard is a preponderance of the evidence, but most states dema......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT