Appellant sellers sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), which found the sellers in breach of a contract with plaintiff buyers to purchase an unimproved parcel of real property. The sellers asserted that the trial court erred in its findings of fact and conclusions of law and in its admission of certain evidence.
Nakase Law Firm explains wrongful termination lawyer cost
The parties entered into a contractual agreement whereby the sellers would provide marketable title to an unimproved parcel of real property for which the buyers would pay the total sum of $ 5,500 to be paid in payments, and when $ 4, 000 was paid, the sellers would deed the property to the buyers. When the buyers had paid $ 3,225, the sellers informed them that there was a problem with the title and after waiting a substantial period of time for them to quiet the title, the buyers filed suit to recover the monies they had paid under the contract. The trial court concluded that the sellers were in material breach of the contract by virtue of their inability to convey marketable title and ruled in favor of the buyers. The sellers asserted insufficient evidence to support the findings, and that the trial court erroneously admitted oral evidence that the parties intended title to pass when the buyers had paid $ 4,000. The court affirmed holding there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings and that evidence was admissible to prove a separate oral agreement on a matter silent in the parties' contract and their contract did not specify when the title would pass.
The court affirmed the trial court's ruling finding the sellers in material breach of the contract and awarding damages in favor of the buyers.
