Jones v. DeWitt
Decision Date | 10 September 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 56816,56816,1 |
Parties | Harvey JONES and Elizabeth Jones, Respondents, v. Mary Mildred DeWITT, an individual, and Mary M. DeWitt, as Executrix of the Estate of Roger DeWitt, deceased, Appellants |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Hogsett, Shaffer & Gibson, James W. Shaffer, Joseph R. Hogsett, Sherman L. Gibson, Kansas City, for respondents.
Rufus B. Burrus, Independence, W. Raleigh Gough, Kansas City, for appellants.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
Action for specific performance of option contract for the sale of real estate. Trial court granted specific performance and awarded plaintiffs judgment for $46,520.87 for overpayment under the contract. Defendants appealed.
The land which is the subject of this litigation is a tract of approximately 205 acres, presently within the boundaries of the city of Independence, Missouri. In 1957, the property was owned by Billy Flournoy, the widow of William Flournoy and the estate of Kenneth Flournoy, the beneficiary of which was Rose Flournoy Harrelson. Both Billy and Rose were non-residents. Martin B. Dickinson was executor of the estate of Kenneth Flournoy, with power of sale. Dickinson had received numerous offers to purchase the property, including one under date of September 18, 1958, by plaintiff-respondent Harvey A. Jones to pay $100,000 for the property. Jones made his offer through an Independence realtor with whom he deposited $1,000 as earnest money.
Jones and his wife were social friends of Roger DeWitt and his wife, Mary Mildred, who lived in Independence. According to Jones, DeWitt learned of Jones' offer and was anxious to join with Jones on the deal. He gave Jones $500 as one half of the earnest money. The offer was rejected and Jones returned the $500 to DeWitt by a check dated November 3, 1958.
In December 1958, DeWitt and his wife and Jones and his wife jointly made an offer of $140,000 for the property. This offer was accepted. The transaction was closed in late December. The purchase price was paid in cash furnished by DeWitt and two short term notes, paid by DeWitt. The deeds, to DeWitt as grantee, were filed for record on December 26, 1958.
In February 1959, the Joneses and DeWitts entered into the agreement which is the basis of this litigation. Omitting the description of the property involved, the agreement read as follows:
'THIS AGREEMENT Made this _ _ day of February, 1959, by and between Roger DeWitt and Mary Mildred DeWitt, his wife, hereinafter referred to as first parties, and Harvey Jones and Elizabeth Jones, his wife, hereinafter referred to as second parties.
'WHEREAS, first parties are the owners of the following described property in Jackson County, Missouri, to-wit:
* * *;
'WHEREAS, in connection with the use and development of the aforedescribed real estate, the parties have discussed the possibility of forming a corporation to carry title to said real estate and to develop said land in any manner determined by the board of directors of any such corporation; and
'WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this written agreement setting out the terms and conditions of their understanding in detail.
'NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of $32,000.00 to first parties in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and in further consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, it is stipulated and agreed by and between the parties as follows:
interest and cause to be sold to second parties the number of shares in any such corporation which will accurately reflect the interest in the real estate for which an option is hereby given. In the event said real estate is sold to any person, firm, corporation or co-partnership of persons (other than a controlled corporation), then first parties will pay to second parties 40% of the net sum received from any such sale less the sum of $24,000.00.
'(b) All expenses incurred in the development, sale or promotion of said land shall be paid by first parties, but if second parties elect to exercise the option granted herein, then second parties shall, upon such election, refund to first parties 40% of all sums expended by first parties.
'(1) $28,750.00 in face amount of notes executed by Kentucky Hills, Inc., and payable to second parties or their order.
'(2) 200 shares of capital stock of Kentucky Hills, Inc., issued to second parties.
'Time is of the essence of this contract.
'IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first written.'
As recited in the agreement, Jones was an engineer. According to him, as soon as the property was sold, he began working on plans for developing and selling the property. He discussed the plans with the DeWitts on numerous occasions. Jones stated that he and DeWitt bought the property, intending to develop it for sale. According to Mrs. DeWitt,
Jones testified that his office staff prepared plans and zoning exhibits involving proceedings in which the zoning was changed to residential and business property.
In September 1959, DeWitt and Jones filed an application with the Jackson County Board of Zoning Adjustment for authorization to establish a sewage disposal unit consisting of five oxidation basins on the property. According to the order granting the permission, the board found that 'Mr. J. Roger DeWitt is the owner of 205 acres of ground on which he plans to construct approximately 500 homes.'
Jones prepared plans and profiles for the basins. His plans are dated July 10, 1959. A 'Plan of Proposed Rogers Park, Independence, Mo. for J. Roger DeWitt & Harvey A. Jones,' dated July 13, 1959, was prepared by Jones.
On September 1, 1959, the DeWitts entered into a contract with the Bishop of the Kansas City Diocese for the sale of 15 acres in Rogers Park for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Venture Stores, Inc. v. Pacific Beach Co. Inc., WD
...Pacific Beach relies upon Magee v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co., 343 Mo. 1022, 124 S.W.2d 1121 (Mo.1938) and Jones v. DeWitt, 499 S.W.2d 524 (Mo.1973) as justification for its argument in favor of a uniform time limit. Neither Magee nor Jones is applicable. Magee involved an oral op......
-
Michaud v. Ruch
...refused to become liable on any note or deed of trust to the defendant. To support this argument, defendant cites Jones v. Dewitt, 499 S.W.2d 524, 534(5) (Mo.1973), and 71 Am.Jur.2d, Specific Performance, § 211, p. 270, for the proposition that in rendering a decree of specific performance,......