Stovall v. Dattel
| Decision Date | 25 February 1981 |
| Citation | 619 S.W.2d 125 |
| Parties | Ben STOVALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Samuel DATTEL and William B. McSwain, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
James D. Causey, Memphis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Henry H. Hancock, Farris, Hancock, Gilman, Branan, Lanier & Hellen, David Silberberg, Memphis, for defendants-appellees.
This case involves the construction of a financing provision in a contract for the sale of real property.
The matter was heard in the trial court on a stipulation by the parties that the questions at issue could be determined from the written documents which were placed in evidence. Following the statements of counsel the court decided the case in favor of the defendants and the plaintiff has appealed.
All parties herein are real estate agents. As such they were involved in a transaction for the sale of real estate in which Appellees desired to purchase 133 lots from the owners, who are not parties to this litigation. A standard real estate contract was executed by Appellee, William B. McSwain on April 14, 1973 for the purchase of this property and a check for $10,000 as earnest money was delivered to Appellant, as agent for the owner, at the signing of the contract. Ten days later Appellee, Samuel Dattel, joined in as a purchaser with McSwain, and Appellant was then given a promissory note for $11,637.50 being one-half of his anticipated agents commission.
The key provision in the sales contract which is critical to this matter is as follows:
"This contract is conditional upon the purchaser obtaining a commitment for financing within a period of 60 days from date hereon or until such time as the Shelby County Building Department will issue permits to build, whichever is the latest."
On April 24, 1973, Appellees waived the 60 day financing condition in a letter to Appellant.
Appellees then arranged for financing of this transaction and notified Appellant on June 12, 1973 of this fact. Also included in the letter was the statement that the financing commitment was only valid for six months from the date of the letter, and should the lots not be delivered by the seller within that time an extension of the financing would have to be obtained.
On January 2, 1974, Appellee, Samuel Dattel, wrote to Appellant concerning the transaction with the last paragraph being as follows "We would appreciate if you would advise the sellers of the contents of this letter, particularly as it regards the fact that we do not have a valid financing commitment at this time and we would appreciate your notifying us of the seller's delivery date so that we may attempt to secure financing."
On February 11, 1974, Appellant wrote the Appellees as follows:
"Please be advised that Mr. Walter Edwards of the Shelby County Building Department has informed me that they are ready to issue building permits in the above captioned subdivision and have been for some time."
On that same day Appellant attempted to cash the $10,000 check he had received as earnest money on April 14, 1973, and was notified that payment thereon had been stopped.
Then on February 21, 1974, Appellee McSwain notified Appellant by certified mail that Appellee did not have a valid financing commitment, and that in accordance with the terms of the contract the failure of the seller to deliver within the time limit of the financing provisions resulted in a failure of the contract.
On September 5, 1975, Appellant brought suit against Appellees in the Chancery Court on the note for $11,637.50 and for the $10,000 earnest money. After issue was joined the case came on for trial and the Chancellor decided the case in favor of the Appellees.
Appellant has utilized 13 pages of his brief to set...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SecurAmerica Bus. Credit v. Schledwitz
...570-71 (1963); The Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding, Inc., 7 S.W.3d 581, 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Stovall v. Dattel, 619 S.W.2d 125, 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981)Hall, 2002 WL 31728875, at *7. The Court first noted that the documents signed by the plaintiffs specifically incorporat......
-
Realty Shop, Inc. v. RR Westminster Holding
...transaction may be considered together. See McCall v. Towne Square, Inc., 503 S.W.2d 180, 182-83 (Tenn.1973); Stovall v. Dattel, 619 S.W.2d 125, 127 (Tenn. Ct. App.1981). In this case, the December 14, 1992 construction contract and all the contracts executed on March 11, 1993 may be constr......
-
Realty Shop Inc. v. Rr Westminster Holding Inc.
...transaction may be considered together. See McCall v. Towne Square, Inc., 503 S.W.2d 180, 182-83 (Tenn. 1973); Stovall v. Dattel, 619 S.W.2d 125, 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). In this case, the December 14, 1992 construction contract and all the contracts executed on March 11, 1993 may be cons......
-
Birkholz v. Hardy, No. W2003-01539-COA-R3-CV (TN 8/11/2004)
...contingency or condition (often referred to as a condition precedent), which is expressly stated in the contract. Stovall v. Dattel, 619 S.W.2d 125 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). The Note at issue in this case undisputedly contains a condition precedent, to wit: the Hardys' obligation to pay the $5......