Odum v. Sims
| Decision Date | 17 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 16359,16359 |
| Citation | 609 S.W.2d 881 |
| Parties | Charles ODUM et ux., Appellants, v. Sidney P. SIMS, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Plaintiffs, Charles Odom and wife, Ruth Odom, appeal from a judgment denying their prayer that defendant, Sidney P. Sims, Jr., be compelled to convey certain land to them.
The instrument on which plaintiffs' claim is based is a printed form lease. The pertinent portions are as follows:
Made this 29th day of October, A.D. 1975 by and between Sidney P. Sims, Jr., known herein as lessor and Charles Odom, known herein as lessee, ...
Witnesseth, that the said lessor does by these presents lease and demise unto the said lessee the following described property, to-wit: Lying and being situated in the County of Real, State of Texas, and being that 25 acre tract of land awarded to Sidney P. Sims Jr. on June 17, 1975 by District Court, Leakey, Texas, in the Partition Judgment in the case styled Sidney P. Sims Jr. Vs Mozelle Hart et al. Lessee to be furnished official plat copy with this lease. Lessee has option to purchase said tract of land at $325.00 per acre and any additional land in said survey which may accrue to said lessor before termination of this lease on May 15, 1976. For the term of Eight Months (8) beginning the 15th day of October A.D. 1975 and ending the 15th day of May, 1976, paying therefor the sum of One Dollar and other considerations payable May 15, 1976. (Underlined portions indicate typewritten material inserted in the printed form by defendant.)
Plaintiffs' pleadings may be summarized as follows:
1. About 60 days prior to the execution of the October 29, 1975, agreement, the parties reached an oral agreement concerning the sale of the land in question by defendant to plaintiffs, with the understanding that the agreement would be reduced to writing later. According to the oral agreement, plaintiffs would pay $325 per acre for the land in question. The purchase price was to be cash, or plaintiffs were to pay 29% of the purchase price as a down payment.
2. After the oral agreement had been reached, plaintiffs, with defendant's consent, moved onto the land, cleared a portion on which they firmly affixed their mobile home to a foundation, installed a water and sewer system, built corrals and pens and fenced in the property, all at a cost of about $7,000.00.
3. Within 30 days after execution of the agreement, plaintiffs notified defendant that they would exercise their option to purchase the land and told defendant that they were ready to either make the 29% down payment or pay the entire purchase price. If defendant wanted the entire purchase price paid at once, plaintiffs indicated that they would do so, since they had a loan commitment. Defendant signified his willingness to furnish a warranty deed and a title policy in order to satisfy the lender.
4. Defendant procrastinated, despite numerous requests by plaintiffs, and finally told plaintiffs that he would not sell the land to them.
Defendant filed a general denial and a counterclaim alleging the execution of the lease and option to defendants and that plaintiffs had failed to exercise the option on or prior to May 15, with the result that the option expired on that date. Defendant also alleged that plaintiffs had remained in possession of the land without paying rent, and prayed for a writ of possession and judgment for the reasonable rental value of the land.
According to the trial court's findings of fact, (1) the contract signed by the parties on October 29, 1975, covered the property in question and contained an option to purchase; (2) plaintiffs moved onto the property after October 29, 1975, but prior to January 1, 1976, and have continued to live on such property, making improvements; (3) plaintiffs did not exercise the option to purchase in writing and after May 15, 1976, defendant sold the property to a third party; (4) plaintiffs notified defendants that they would borrow the money and pay the purchase price in full or that they would make a down payment of 29% of the purchase price and pay the remainder in installments satisfactory to defendant; (5) plaintiffs "did all they could do to enforce defendant's obligation to complete the sale ... but defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Faucette v. Chantos
...[14th Dist.] 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Luccia v. Ross, 274 S.W.3d 140, 149-50 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied); Odum v. Sims, 609 S.W.2d 881, 882 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1980, no writ); Kenver Corp. v. Robinson, 492 S.W.2d 317, 319-20 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1973, writ ref'......
-
Brown v. Commissioner
...optionee is that he notify the optionor, prior to the expiration of the option, of his decision to exercise the option. Odum v. Sims, 609 S.W.2d 881 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980). The lease-option agreement provided that in order to exercise the option Bruce was required to give Anderson 60-days no......
-
Franklin v. Austin Inner City Redevelopment Phase I, Ltd.
...prevent the completion of a sale." Elliot v. Lewis, 1994 WL 709333, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 16, 1994, no pet.) (citing Odum v. Sims, 609 S.W.2d 881, 882 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1980, no writ)). The Lease Addendum conveying the option to purchase did not include any provision requir......
-
Maxwell v. Lake
...the option. San Antonio Joint Stock Land Bank v. Malcher, 164 S.W.2d 197 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1942, writ ref'd w.o.m.); Odum v. Sims, 609 S.W.2d 881 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1980, no writ); Farrell v. Evans, 517 S.W.2d 585, 589 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1974, no writ). See ......