Sturm v. Heim
| Decision Date | 27 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 7428,7428 |
| Citation | Sturm v. Heim, 389 P.2d 702, 95 Ariz. 300 (Ariz. 1964) |
| Parties | Francis Louis STURM and Christine Antonia Augustine Sturm, his wife, Appellants, v. Gustav F. HEIM and Florence E. Heim, his wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Herbert B. Finn, Phoenix, for appellants.
Cordova, Goss & Mariscal, Phoenix, for appellees.
On September 23, 1958, plaintiffs-appellants filed their complaint praying for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of real estate between appellants and defendants-appellees.Certain other relief was requested by appellants, but these prayers are not now at issue.
Appellees answered to the effect that appellants had forfeited all of their rights under the agreement and were barred by the statute of limitations.Appellees also filed a counterclaim to quiet title.Appellants filed a reply in the form of a general denial.
The case was tried to a jury, but the jury was dismissed, being unable to arrive at a verdict.Both parties filed a motion for a directed verdict.The court granted appellees' motion.Judgment was entered on the counterclaim and on the order granting appellees' motion.Appellants' motion for a new trial was denied.
From the order granting appellees' motion and the judgment entered thereon, from the judgment on the counterclaim, and from the orders denying their motions for a directed verdict and a new trial, appellants bring this appeal.
Hereinafter appellants and appellees will be designated 'buyers' and 'sellers' respectively.
The evidence shows that on December 10, 1947, buyers and sellers entered into an agreement for the purchase of eighty acres of real property described as follows:
'The North one-half of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 11, Township 4 North, Range 2 West of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian.'
The purchase price was $2,500, $300 of which was to be paid upon the execution of the agreement with the balance payable in installments of $40 per month with interest on the unpaid balance at the rate of four per cent per annum.The monthly payments were to commence upon the 3rd day of January, 1948, and to continue upon the 3rd day of each and every month thereafter until the entire sum was paid.
The buyers agreed to pay all taxes and assessments levied upon the said premises for the year 1948 and subsequent thereto.The sellers covenanted to deliver possession upon the execution of the agreement, and to deliver a warranty deed upon the payment in full of the purchase price.
The agreement contained the following default clause:
(Emphasis ours.)
Shortly after the purchase, the buyers proceeded to build a home upon what they thought was the eighty-acre plot.In choosing a site for the location thereof, they were guided by the advice of Mr. Heim, one of the sellers.The land in question had not been surveyed at the time of the agreement, but a subsequent survey showed that the home had been built on property owned by one Costello.The sellers, in order that the buyers would not lose their home, (the buyers had moved to California during the latter part of 1949) purchased approximately three acres from Costello and had the deed made out to the buyers as a gift.The deed was dated June 30, 1951.
On August 6th, 1951, the sellers sent the buyers a letter enclosing therein the deed to the three acres and explaining that the acreage adjoined the eighty acres which they were purchasing and that they would not lose their home.They also stated that they did not know whether the buyers had paid the taxes on the eighty acres, but that after October 1st, the property would be sold for taxes, if delinquent.
After receiving the letter of August 6th, the buyers hired an attorney, Mr. Sylvan Allen, of Los Angeles, California.The buyers were concerned about whether the three acres were contiguous with the land they were purchasing.Allen wrote to the sellers in September and enclosed therein the monthly payment.He stated that the payment was being made under protest, and was merely to keep the purchase contract in good standing.Up through August, all of the payments had been made on time, but this one was received late on September 24, 1951.This brought the total sum paid up to $2100, 84% of the purchase price.No further payment or tender to pay in accordance with the terms of the contract was made until the filing of the lawsuit seven years later.
This is an executory contract for the sale of real property in which the sellers agreed to deliver possession immediately and a warranty deed to the property...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Bailey v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
...that reasonable minds may differ on the inferences to be drawn therefrom, the case must be submitted to the jury.' Sturm v. Heim, 95 Ariz. 300, 304, 389 P.2d 702, 705 (1964). See also, Heth v. Del Webb's Highway Inn, 102 Ariz. 330, 429 P.2d 442 (No. 8206, filed June 22, The defendant mainta......
-
Martinez v. Martinez
...rule, a vendor has the right to treat a contract as at an end upon the vendee's default where time is of the essence. Sturm v. Heim, 95 Ariz. 300, 389 P.2d 702 (1964); see also; Hansen v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 175 Mont. 273, 573 P.2d 663 (1978); Cf. Kosloff v. Castle, 115 Cal.App.3d 3......
-
Avechuco v. Awtrey
...Spray-Chemical Corp., 103 Ariz. 461, 445 P.2d 437; Robledo v. Kopp, supra; LeRoy v. Phillips, 97 Ariz. 263, 399 P.2d 669; Sturm v. Heim, 95 Ariz. 300, 389 P.2d 702; Spain v. Kelland, 93 Ariz. 172, 379 P.2d 149; In Re Stitt's Estate, 93 Ariz. 302, 380 P.2d 601; Reed v. Gavin, 91 Ariz. 38, 36......
-
O. S. Stapley Co. v. Miller
...character that reasonable minds may differ on the inferences to be drawn therefrom, the case must be submitted to the jury. Sturm v. Heim, 95 Ariz. 300, 389 P.2d 702.' Heth v. Del Webb's Highway Inn, 102 Ariz. 330, 429 P.2d 442, filed 22 June The facts viewed in the light indicated by our S......
-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
...5-25Stewart v. Underwood, 146 Ariz. 145, 704 P.2d 275 (App. 1985).......... 1-8; 4-5; 5-4Sturm v. Heim, 95 Ariz. 300, 389 P.2d 702 (1964).................................................. 2-57Successions of Onorato, 219 La. 1, 51 So. 2d 804 (1951)........................................... ......
-
2.3.8.2 Recording and Service of the Notice of Election to Forfeit.
...if the contract provided for forfeiture without notice, the Notice of Election to Forfeit was not required, Sturm v. Heim, 95 Ariz.300, 389 P.2d 702 (1964), has been effectively overruled by statute. Even then, giving such a notice was clearly the better practice. The Notice of Election to ......