Young v. Bryan
Decision Date | 05 April 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 1-576-A-74,1-576-A-74 |
Citation | 368 N.E.2d 1,178 Ind.App. 702 |
Parties | Lola Mae YOUNG, as Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel S. Young, Deceased, and Lola Mae Young, Appellants, v. Clark A. BRYAN and Bonnie Lou Bryan, Appellees. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Vernon J. Petri, Richard W. Lorenz, John J. Fuhs, Spencer, for appellants.
Arch N. Bobbitt, Ruckelshaus, Bobbitt & O'Connor, Indianapolis, Rexell A. Boyd, Lyon & Boyd, Greencastle, for appellees.
Plaintiff-appellant Lola Mae Young in her personal capacity and as administratrix of the Estate of Daniel S. Young appeals We remand for further determinations.
from a judgment for defendants appellees Clark A. and Bonnie Lou Bryan in a bench trial of Lola's action for specific performance of a contract to sell land and for damages due to non-performance.
Clark and Daniel discussed the sale of the Bryans' 160-acre farm to the Youngs; the Bryans signed and gave to Daniel the document set forth in the trial court's first finding of fact, infra.
Daniel sought a loan of $72,000 from a bank. The bank president and vice-president went to the Bryans' farm, informed the Bryans that they were there to appraise the farm for the purpose of a mortgage loan to Daniel, and were shown the boundaries of the farm by Clark. The bank approved the loan.
The trial court's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment" stated:
'We Clark A. Bryan & Bonnie Lou Bryan agree to sell our 160 acres for $72,000.00. This farm is located SE 1/4 Sec 15 51/2. Real estate taxes for 1972 are $467.62. We agree to give possession on March 1, 1974.
'The limit of liability insurance is as follows:
Farm Dwelling $14,000.00 Barn 4,500.00 Workshop 2,000.00 Sm metal pole shed 500.00 Large metal pole shed 5,000.00
'The house has 8 rooms, carpeted upstairs & steps, carpeted living room & bath. Enclosed back porch.
Whether the trial court's judgment was clearly erroneous.
Lola contends that the trial court's judgment was contrary to law inasmuch as its fourth finding of fact disclosed that it applied an erroneous rule of law to the facts.
This finding shows that the trial court held that the Bryans' offer was not accepted; it shows that the trial court considered a filing or delivery of the Youngs' acceptance to be necessary to form a contract.
We cannot disturb said finding and judgment unless they were clearly erroneous. Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 52(A). Clearly erroneous means that, although there is evidence to support the trial court's decision, the record leaves the reviewing court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Citizens Gas & Coke Utility v. Wells (1971), 150 Ind.App. 78, 275 N.E.2d 323.
It is not the law of this state that an offeree's acceptance must be filed or delivered to the offeror before a contract is created. The acceptance must be evidenced by some overt act and must be communicated to the offeror so that there is a meeting of the parties' minds. 6 I.L.E., Contracts §§ 21, 23, 26 (1958). The acceptance may be expressed verbally, in writing, or by acts which manifest the acceptance. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Perkins (1907), 41 Ind.App. 183, 80 N.E. 682.
Our Statute of Frauds 1 does not govern the formation of contracts but only the enforceability of contracts which have been formed. It does not void a verbal contract for the sale of an interest in real property. Dubois County Machine Co. v. Blessinger (1971), 149 Ind.App. 594, 274 N.E.2d 279.
To render a contract to sell land enforceable within the Statute of Frauds, it must be evidenced by some writing: (1) which has been signed by the party against whom the contract is to be enforced or his authorized agent, (2) which describes with reasonable certainty each party and the land, and (3) which states with reasonable certainty the terms and conditions of the promises and by whom and to whom promises were made. McMahan Construction Co. v. Wegehoft Brothers, Inc. (1976),...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Indiana & Michigan Elec. Co. v. Terre Haute Industries, Inc.
...O. Held & Co. (1982), Ind.App., 438 N.E.2d 1016; Cornett v. Cornett (1980), Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 1232, trans. denied; Young v. Bryan (1978), 178 Ind.App. 702, 368 N.E.2d 1, 368 N.E.2d 3, trans. denied. In determining whether the findings are clearly erroneous, this court will construe the f......
-
Town of Rome City v. King
...has been committed, and where the evidence is conflicting, deference shall be given the trial court's decision. Young v. Bryan (1977), 178 Ind.App. 702, 368 N.E.2d 1. Where special findings are made by the trial court, they must be sufficient to disclose a valid basis for the legal result r......
-
Sword v. Sweet
...Inc. v. Ameritech Pub., Inc., 642 N.E.2d 1011, 1013 (Ind.Ct.App.1994). Acceptance may be expressed in writing. Young v. Bryan, 178 Ind.App. 702, 368 N.E.2d 1, 3 (1977). "[T]here is a general consensus among the courts that separation agreements are to be construed like other contracts and r......
-
Decatur County AG-Services, Inc. v. Young
...that when a case is tried by the court, the trial judge's decision will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. Young v. Bryan, (1977) Ind.App., 368 N.E.2d 1; University Casework Systems, Inc. v. Bahre, (1977) Ind.App., 362 N.E.2d "We find ample evidence to support the trial court......