Neustadt v. Pearce

• Decision Date: 01 July 1958
• Citation: 145 Conn. 403,143 A.2d 437
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Egon NEUSADT et al. v. Edward D. PEARCE, Jr. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 437

143 A.2d 437

145 Conn. 403

Egon NEUSADT et al. v. Edward D. PEARCE, Jr.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 1, 1958.

Richard Hanna, Danbury, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Stephen N. Hume, New Milford, with whom, on the brief, was David Cramer, Litchfield, for appellee (defendant).

Before DALY, C. J., and BALDWIN, KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ JJ.

BALDWIN, Justice.

On December 30, 1932, William H. Edwards owned, in Sherman, a large tract of land which he had developed for residential purposes and portions of which he had sold for building lots. On that date he conveyed 1.3 acres of the tract to Camille DeBarbac, and the deed was duly recorded. The deed contained the following covenant: 'The grantor shall also have the right and privilege to repurchase the above described premises in the event that the grantee desires to sell the same, at a price which the grantee shall have been offered for a sale and conveyance of the same premises. The conditions above provided for are all part of the consideration of the sale of the premises and the conveyance of same by the grantor, and are binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.' Camille DeBarbac conveyed these 1.3 acres to Clara Keller on December 15, 1936, and she in turn conveyed them to the defendant on July 26, 1944. Meantime, on May 31, 1935, Edwards mortgaged the unsold portion of his development to Eliot D. Platt, to whom he also gave a second mortgage on October 7, 1935. These mortgages were foreclosed on March 9, 1945, and Carl Larson, an incumbrancer, redeemed and obtained title on April 14, 1945. Larson conveyed to the plaintiffs on August 10, 1945. In June, 1956, the defendant offered his 1.3 acres for sale, and the plaintiffs, relying on the provision concerning repurchase in the deed from Edwards to DeBarbac, made tender of the asking price and demanded a conveyance, which the defendant refused. The plaintiffs then brought this action to restrain the defendant from conveying to anyone but them without first offering to convey to them at the contemplated purchase price. The trial court rendered judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiffs have appealed.

The decisive issue is whether the covenant giving the right to repurchase is enforceable by these plaintiffs, Edwards' successors in title to the original tract. The covenant purported to grant to Edwards, his heirs, successors and assigns a continuing option, unlimited as to time, to purchase...