Spivey v. Rogers, 37978
| Decision Date | 10 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 37978,37978 |
| Citation | 249 Ga. 179,288 S.E.2d 555 |
| Parties | SPIVEY v. ROGERS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
M. Francis Stubbs, Stubbs & Branan, Reidsville, Richard Milam, Garland & Milam, P. C., Jackson, for Levy J. Spivey.
Bobby Jones, Doremus & Jones, Metter, Richard D. Phillips, Ludowici, for Theron L. Rogers et al.
Appellant brought an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a 95 per cent interest in real estate. The complaint prayed for damages in the event specific performance was not granted. The trial court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment on both counts. We affirm.
The contract states that it is The contract also provides that "Seller and Purchaser agree that this agreement shall expire sixty (60) days from the date of its execution [December 31, 1979]."
A response to the loan transfer application, however, was not forthcoming until June, 1980, when the FmHA notified the parties that the application had been denied. The parties prepared a second application to clear up some problems existing with the initial one and submitted it to the FmHA on June 24, 1980. The application states that the "Date Expected to Complete Transfer" as August 1, 1980. A "Reason for Transfer" is also provided: "Owner [is] presently unable to meet financial obligations."
Loan transfer approval was not obtained by August 1. Thereafter, appellee did nothing to indicate a continued willingness to extend the contract. On September 29, 1980, appellee informed appellant that the "agreement is hereby terminated" because "the terms of said agreement contemplated that time was of the essence of the contract, and the terms thereof were not performed as contemplated as within a reasonable time thereafter..."
Approximately two weeks later, a letter was sent from the FmHA's national office to the local FmHA director. It states: "Based upon your recommendatons and the information you submitted you are hereby authorized to approve the transfer provided the applicable portion of paragraph XVIII of FmHA Instruction 465.1 and the following conditions are met..." Three pages of conditions followed. Shortly after appellant learned of the FmHA conditional acceptance, he brought this action.
"The real issue in this case is whether the [notice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. Tattnall Bank
...for specific performance (80-285) and the trial court granted summary judgment to Rogers. The Supreme Court affirmed. Spivey v. Rogers, 249 Ga. 179, 288 S.E.2d 555. Although the rental receipts from the San-Reid Apartments were deposited in the partnership account, Rogers asked Spivey not t......
-
Ih Riverdale v. Mcchesney Capital Partners
...206 S.E.2d 449 (1974); Boswell v. United States, 123 F.2d 213, 215 (5th Cir.1941) (applying Georgia law). Compare Spivey v. Rogers, 249 Ga. 179, 180, 288 S.E.2d 555 (1982) (although strict compliance with original deadline had been waived, missing new deadline by almost two months constitut......
- Johnson v. Mayor & City Council of City of Carrollton
-
Spivey v. Rogers
...for summary judgment on Spivey's complaint was granted by the trial court on both counts. The Supreme Court affirmed. Spivey v. Rogers, 249 Ga. 179, 288 S.E.2d 555 (1982). Thereafter, appeal was taken from an order dismissing Spivey's cross-action against the Bank and this Court dismissed t......