Luke v. Conrad
| Decision Date | 01 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 11546,11546 |
| Citation | 96 Idaho 221,526 P.2d 181 |
| Parties | Gordon LUKE and Eola D. Luke, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Howard CONARD et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
J. Robert Alexander of Benoit, Alexander & Harwood, Bert Larson of Parry, Robertson, Daly & Larson, Twin Falls, for defendants-appellants.
Richard K. Smith, of Parsons, Smith & Pedersen, Burley, for plaintiffs-respondents.
This appeal arises out of the plaintiffs-respondents', Gordon and Eola Luke's, action for specific performance of a written agreement for the conveyance of farm land entered into with the defendants-appellants, Howard and Mary Conrad. The respondent Gordon Luke contacted the appellant Howard Conard through a real estate agent and entered into negotiations for the purchase of a 640 acre farm. On July 10, 1972, the appellant, Howard Conrad, and the respondent, gordon Luke, signed an earnest money agreement in which the appellant agreed to convey the 640 acre farm to the respondent. The Earnest Money Agreement contemplated that a land sale contract would be entered into by the parties. The appellants' attorneys drafted a land sale contract and submitted it to the respondents for their signatures. The respondent Gordon Luke contacted the appellant Howard Conrad and requested that additional terms be placed in the land sale contract, and it was returned to the appellants' attorneys. A revised land sale contract was drafted and sent to the respondents, and they signed the constract. The appellants refused to sign the revised land sale contract and refused to convey the 640 acre farm.
During the negotiations for the purchase of the 640 acre farm, the respondent Gordon Luke believed that the entire farm was owned by Conrad Land and Livestock, Inc. The corporation is owned by the appellants, and the appellant Howard Conrad serves as its president. It was subsequently determined that the corporation did not own all of the farm land, but 320 acres were owned by Conrad and his wife as community property.
Upon the appellants refusal to convey the 640 acre farm, the respondents filed an action seeking damages and specific performance of the Earnest Money Agreement. Affidavits and depositions were filed with the trial court, and both the appellants and the respondents filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court rendered a memorandum decision and signed an order for summary judgment which directed specific performance of the Earnest Money Agreement. This appeal is from the summary judgment.
The following provision of the Earnest Money Agreement shows that it contemplated that a land sale contract would be entered into by the parties which would include...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolford v. Tankersley
...was nothing in this agreement to show that the parties contemplated a land sale contract would be entered into. See Luke v. Conrad, 96 Idaho 221, 526 P.2d 181 (1974). However, even though the earnest money agreement was intended to operate as the contract between the parties, to constitute ......
- Nampa Highway Dist. No. 1, v. Knight
-
White v. Rehn
...forth the rule that ambiguous earnest money agreements will not support an award of specific performance or damages. Luke v. Conrad, 96 Idaho 221, 526 P.2d 181 (1974), Matheson v. Harris, 96 Idaho 759, 536 P.2d 754 "An agreement for the sale of real property must not only be in writing and ......
-
Russell v. Russell
...The dissent's statement I presume is made in reliance on Matheson v. Harris, 96 Idaho 759, 536 P.2d 754 (1975), Luke v. Conrad, 96 Idaho 221, 526 P.2d 181 (1974), and Suchan v. Rutherford, 90 Idaho 288, 410 P.2d 434 (1966).1 I.C. § 9-503 provides:No estate or interest in real property, othe......