Patel v. Liebermensch
Decision Date | 22 December 2008 |
Docket Number | No. S156797.,S156797. |
Citation | 45 Cal. 4th 344,86 Cal.Rptr.3d 366,197 P.3d 177 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | Sunil PATEL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Morris LIEBERMENSCH et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
Mitchell & Gilleon, James C. Mitchell and Daniel M. Gilleon, San Diego, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Lee R. Goldberg for Defendants and Appellants.
In this action for specific performance of a real estate option contract, the Court of Appeal reversed a judgment for the plaintiff. Over a vigorous dissent, the court held that the contract was too uncertain to enforce because it lacked the essential terms of time and manner of payment. We reverse. It is settled that if a contract for the sale of real property specifies no time of payment, a reasonable time is allowed. The manner of payment is also a term that may be supplied by implication, and was not significantly uncertain in this case. The Court of Appeal majority erred by failing to enforce a straightforward option contract. It also improperly relied on the parties' conduct after their dispute arose to conclude that they had failed to reach a binding agreement.
Defendant Morris Liebermensch and his wife Zita owned a condominium unit in San Diego, through a family partnership. They acquired the property with the idea that one of their children might want to live there after finishing college. However, none of the children used the unit, and it was vacant in July 2003 when plaintiff Sunil Patel expressed interest in leasing the property with an option to buy. On July 25, Liebermensch faxed Patel the following proposal:
Patel signed the proposal, with a handwritten amendment providing an option to renew until August 2005. Zita Liebermensch prepared a form rental agreement, adding a paragraph stating "OPTION TO BUY IS ATTACHED." Patel and Morris Liebermensch signed the agreement. Liebermensch also signed the option proposal and initialed Patel's amendment.
In July 2004, Patel sent Liebermensch a letter, enclosing a notice that he was exercising the option to purchase for the agreed price of $298,700. In the letter, he said he and his wife were "anxious to complete the purchase as soon as reasonably possible so as to take advantage of the current interest rates." Liebermensch sent Patel a purchase agreement dated August 16, 2004, referring to the parties' option agreement and Patel's notice exercising the option. The purchase agreement included an "as is" clause, a requirement of a 10 percent deposit with the escrow company, and a specification that "The SELLER will require ninety (90) days or sooner to close escrow with the right to extend the closing for an additional thirty (30) days if necessary in order to exercise a 1031 exchange." At trial, Liebermensch conceded that the parties had not previously discussed the subject of a tax-deferred exchange under 26 United States Code section 1031 (section 1031 exchange). Mrs. Liebermensch testified that she and her husband had not discussed the matter in 2003 when the option contract was negotiated, although she was familiar with the subject of section 1031 exchanges.
Patel responded with a proposed agreement in which the "as is" clause was qualified by giving the buyer an option to cancel if not fully satisfied, and which provided that if the seller required more than 30 days to close escrow, the deposit would be reduced to $5,000 and the seller would "be responsible for all escrow and other expenses after 30 days of opening escrow." Patel testified that he included the latter clause because his mortgage broker had informed him an interest rate could not be guaranteed for as long as 90 to 120 days.
Liebermensch rejected this proposal. According to Patel, Liebermensch told him "if you want to buy the condominium, you buy it on my bid." At some point, Patel and his wife Bela signed Liebermensch's original purchase agreement and sent it to Liebermensch. However, Liebermensch did not respond.
Patel filed suit, seeking specific performance of the option agreement. The jury returned special verdicts finding that the parties had entered into an option contract giving Patel the right to purchase the property, and that the terms of the contract were sufficiently clear to carry out its objective.1 Based on those verdicts, the trial court entered judgment granting Patel specific performance. The parties were required to perform their respective duties under the contract within 60 days after the notice of entry of judgment was mailed.
The Court of Appeal reversed, in a split decision. The majority reasoned that the Liebermensches were bound by the terms of the option contract only if it included all the essential terms of a real estate purchase contract. Here, the contract did not specify the time or manner of payment. The majority decided that, while it might be reasonable in some circumstances to imply standard terms on these points into the contract, here it was not. The majority noted the tax consequences facing the Liebermensches, and concluded that the parties' ongoing dispute over economic conditions after Patel exercised the option demonstrated they had never agreed on all material terms of the transaction.
The dissenting justice would have supplied terms for time and manner of payment by implication, allowing a reasonable time and assuming that the manner of payment was cash or cash equivalent upon delivery of the deed. The dissent faulted the majority for relying on negotiations arising after Patel exercised his option.
We granted Patel's petition for review.
Settled principles of contract law govern this case. The equitable remedy of specific performance cannot be granted if the terms of a contract are not certain enough for the court to know what to enforce. (Civ. Code, § 3390, subd. 5; Buckmaster v. Bertram (1921) 186 Cal. 673, 676, 200 P. 610.) However, "`[t]he law does not favor but leans against the destruction of contracts because of uncertainty; and it will, if feasible, so construe agreements as to carry into effect the reasonable intentions of the parties if [they] can be ascertained.'" (McIllmoil v. Frawley Motor Co. (1923) 190 Cal. 546, 549, 213 P. 971; accord, Bohman v. Berg (1960) 54 Cal.2d 787, 797, 8 Cal.Rptr. 441, 356 P.2d 185 (citing cases); Blackburn v. Charnley (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 758, 766, 11 Cal. Rptr.3d 885; Okun v. Morton (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 805, 817, 250 Cal.Rptr. 220.)
"An agreement for the purchase or sale of real property does not have to be evidenced by a formal contract drawn with technical exactness in order to be binding." (King v. Stanley (1948) 32 Cal.2d 584, 588, 197 P.2d 321 (King).) (Id. at pp. 588-589, 197 P.2d 321.)
Here, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Liebermensches that the absence of terms specifying the time and manner of payment made the parties' contract too uncertain to enforce. It is clear, however, that there was no substantial dispute or uncertainty over the manner of payment by Patel.2 While the purchase agreement drafted by Liebermensch after Patel exercised his option added a requirement that Patel make a "good faith" 10 percent deposit with the escrow company, and Patel countered with a deposit proposal of his own, these were merely incidental matters that had no effect on the ultimate payment to be received by the Liebermensches at the close of escrow.3 It was the length of the escrow period, unspecified in the contract, that was the sticking point. King, however, makes it plain that the escrow period is not a necessary term in a contract of sale, and that in any event "time of payment" is a contract term determinable by implication as a matter of law.
The contract in King, evidenced by an exchange of letters between the parties, made no reference to time of payment or the period of escrow. (King, supra, 32 Cal.2d at pp. 586-587, 197 P.2d 321.) The defendant claimed the escrow instructions included terms to which she had not agreed. (Id. at p. 589, 197 P.2d 321.) This court rejected her arguments, reasoning in part as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McClain v. Sav-On Drugs
...cannot alter the express terms of the parties' contract or otherwise rebut the statutory presumption (Patel v. Liebermensch (2008) 45 Cal.4th 344, 352, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 366, 197 P.3d 177 [" ‘The terms of the contract are determinable by an external, not by an internal standard’ "] ). We rejec......
-
Bayer v. Showmotion, Inc.
...written memorandum stating essential terms of contract with reasonable certainty); see also Patel v. Liebermensch, supra, 45 Cal.4th at 351-52, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 366, 197 P.3d 177 (parties' conduct subsequent to formation of contract may be relevant in determining which terms they considered e......
-
Reiydelle v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
...as to carry into effect the reasonable intentions of the parties if [they] can be ascertained." Patel v. Liebermensch, 45 Cal.4th 344, 349, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 366, 197 P.3d 177 (2008) (citations omitted). In Wigod, the Seventh Circuit explained that, while the TPP did not set forth the terms of......
-
Gopro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., Case No. 16–cv–01944–SI
...contract is enforceable notwithstanding an omission in one of the terms of the agreement." Id. (citing Patel v. Liebermensch , 45 Cal.4th 344, 352, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 366, 197 P.3d 177 (2008) ). The Court agrees with the reasoning of Cycle Shack . The assignment form between GoPro and Dow conta......