Noah v. Montford
| Decision Date | 31 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 39732,39732 |
| Citation | 77 Wn.2d 459,463 P.2d 129 |
| Parties | Bill NOAH, dba Noah's Realty, Respondent, v. Roy D. MONTFORD and F. June Montford, his wife, Appellants. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Bonjorni, Burgeson & Fiori, Duncan A. Bonjorni, Auburn, for appellants.
Curran, Kleweno & Curran, Melvin L. Kleweno, Jr., Kent, for respondent.
Defendants appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in an action to recover a real estate commission.
January 24, 1966, plaintiff realtor received a written 45-day exclusive listing agreement from defendants who wanted to sell 120 acres of real property near Enumclaw. Defendants were then purchasing the property on contract and there was a $53,000 balance owing on the purchase.
February 24, 1966, defendants signed an earnest money agreement to sell the front 60 acres of that property to Lyle Schneider. Defendants also executed three other earnest money agreements, each coverning 20 acres of the remaining property and each with a different purchaser. The sale of the back 60 acres in three separate parcels was contingent upon the closing of the Schneider sale, and the Schneider agreement was conditioned upon Mr. Schneider's ability to obtain adequate financing. Each purchaser was produced by plaintiff realtor within the period of time granted him under the exclusive listing agreement.
The Schneider earnest money agreement provided that:
Purchaser agrees to pay entire purchase price, by paying cash, including the earnest money, down to proceeds of a conventional type mortgage, which he agrees to secure immediately. This purchase contingent upon purchaser's ability to secure said mortgage.
Evidence at the trial indicated, however, that Mr. Schneider was not able to procure a conventional mortgage. Other evidence indicated that he then proposed a different financing arrangement which would satisfy the demands of all the parties, including defendants. Thereafter, May 27, 1966, defendants advised Mr. Schneider and plaintiff that the newly proposed financing plan was not satisfactory to them and not in accordance with the terms of either the listing agreement or earnest money agreement. June 8, 1966, Mr. Schneider and the other three purchasers made formal tender and demand for closing. June 20, 1966, defendants declined each tender and refused the demands. This lawsuit followed.
Defendants first argue that the Schneider earnest money agreement expired by its own terms because the purchaser failed to Immediately secure financing as required by the agreement. They say that plaintiff did not earn a commission under the expired contract. The trial court, however, after considering the evidence, declined to adopt a strict interpretation of the earnest money financing clause and instead found that Mr. Schneider was only required to make immediate application for necessary financial assistance. Our examination of the record, and particularly the testimony of Mr. Schneider and plaintiff, discloses substantial competent testimony in support of that finding. We will not, therefore, substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Thorndike v. Hesperian Orchards, Inc., 54 Wash.2d 570, 343 P.2d 183 (1959); Ritzschke v. Department of Labor and Indus., 76 Wash.Dec.2d 29,454 P.2d 850 (1969). The evidence was clear that Mr. Schneider made immediate and exhaustive efforts to obtain conventional type financing but that his efforts were thwarted by an exceedingly tight money market.
It is then said that the Schneider earnest money agreement was terminated by the defendants on April 29, 1966, when they notified plaintiff by letter of that fact. The trial court found, however, that defendants continued to negotiate with Mr. Schneider after that date and, because of that fact, their claimed attempt to terminate the earnest money agreement was without legal effect. The court found that defendants' actions belied their declarations.
The evidence was undisputed that on May 12, 1966, defendants notified plaintiff by letter of the conditions which were to be fulfilled before the sale could be finally consummated. That letter made specific reference to the February 24, 1966 earnest money agreement and it established no time period within which the stated conditions had to be met. It was thus apparent that defendants did not consider the earnest money agreements terminated. The record supports the finding of the trial court.
Defendants then claim that the May 12, 1966 letter did not, and could not, revive the February 24, 1966 earnest money agreement because that agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
House v. Erwin
...Expressly authorized the broker to subsequently attach a legally sufficient description to the brokerage contract. Noah v. Montford, 77 Wash.2d 459, 463 P.2d 129 (1969); Edwards v. Meader, 34 Wash.2d 921, 210 P.2d 1019 The main thrust of plaintiff's argument on appeal is that the language o......
-
State v. Vidal, 42091
...disturbed on appeal. See Lindbrook Constr., Inc. v. Mukilteo School Dist. No. 6, 76 Wash.2d 539, 458 P.2d 1 (1969); Noah v. Montford, 77 Wash.2d 459, 463 P.2d 129 (1969); Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. Doyle, 81 Wash.2d 146, 500 P.2d 79 The second issue raised on appeal is whether the tri......
-
Dick Bedlington Real Estate, L.L.C. v. Tawes, No. 59387-1-I (Wash. App. 10/20/2008)
...P.2d 1019 (1949) ("earnest money agreement contained the words `1136 Vandalia Legal Des. to be entered by agent.'"); Noah v. Montford, 77 Wn.2d 459, 463, 463 P.2d 129 (1969) ("plaintiff was expressly authorized by the parties to the earnest money agreements to insert the legal description o......
-
Dick Bedlington Real Estate, L.L.C. v. Tawes, 59387-1-I
...210 P.2d 1019 (1949) ("earnest money agreement contained the words '1136 Vandalia Legal Des. to be entered by agent.'"); Noah v. Montford, 77 Wn.2d 459, 463, 463 P.2d 129 (1969) ("plaintiff was expressly authorized by the parties to the earnest money agreements to insert the legal descripti......
-
Table of Cases
...Wash. 618, 34 P. 162 (1893): 5.5(8) Niemann v. Vaughn Cmty. Church, 154 Wn.2d 365, 113 P.3d 463 (2005): 2.3(2), 13.7(1) Noah v. Montford, 77 Wn.2d 459, 463 P.2d 129 (1969): 10.7(2) Noble v. Safe Harbor Family Pres. Trust, 141 Wn.App. 168, 169 P.3d 45 (2007), review granted, 187 P.3d 750 (20......
-
Chapter §10.7 - Elements of the Agreement
...over the buyer's and seller's signatures, the legal description of the property are common in preprinted forms. In Noah v. Montford, 77 Wn.2d 459, 463 P.2d 129 (1969), a provision allowing a real estate broker to insert a legal description was held sufficient, even though the document conta......