Caseflicks

Missouri Court of Appeals • 1991

Nahn v. Soffer

824 S.W.2d 442 | 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1506

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, a timely exercised real-estate option can create a contract without requiring closing before the option expires, but a buyer who waits too long to enforce that contract may lose specific performance through laches.

Background

William and Shirley Nahn owned 1.26 undeveloped acres in St. Louis County. In June 1986, they gave Donald Soffer a one-year option to buy the property. The option could be accepted by written notice by June 28, 1987. It did not set a closing date, but it allowed Soffer or an assignee to cancel the option or any resulting purchase contract if they could not obtain the governmental ordinance or permit needed for their intended business.

Soffer sent written notice on June 10, 1987 that he was exercising the option, subject to its terms. The Nahns responded after the option period ended that, because the sale had not closed by June 28, the option had expired. Soffer maintained that his timely acceptance had formed a binding purchase contract and said he would pursue appropriate zoning. He later assigned his interest to Ten-Eighteen Investment Corporation, a corporation he used to conceal his identity.

Ten-Eighteen subsequently gave Shell Oil an option to purchase the property, and Shell filed a rezoning petition in June 1988. Shell withdrew the petition in February 1989. After the Nahns again denied that Soffer had any interest in the land, Soffer notified them that he would close in March 1989—approximately twenty-one months after exercising the option. During that period, the land's value rose from about $200,000 to between $300,000 and $350,000, and Soffer did not pay property taxes as the option required.

The Nahns brought a quiet-title action. Soffer and Ten-Eighteen counterclaimed for specific performance. After a bench trial, the circuit court quieted title in the Nahns and denied specific performance. Because neither party requested detailed findings, the appellate court assumed the trial court resolved factual issues consistently with its judgment and affirmed if any reasonable legal theory supported it.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Soffer's timely written exercise of the option created a purchase contract that required closing by the option's June 28, 1987 expiration date.

Holding

Yes, Soffer's timely exercise created an enforceable bilateral purchase contract, and no, the sale did not have to close before the option expired.

Reasoning

An option involving real estate becomes an enforceable bilateral contract when the optionee timely accepts it. Although the option deadline governed the time for acceptance, the agreement did not make time of the essence for completing the resulting sale or set a closing date.

When a real-estate purchase contract is silent on the time for performance, the law supplies a requirement that performance occur within a reasonable time. Thus, Soffer was not required to close by June 28, 1987, but he was required to proceed toward closing within a reasonable period after his June 10 acceptance.

Issue #2

Whether the Nahns' July 1987 assertion that Soffer had no further contractual rights excused Soffer and Ten-Eighteen from further contractual performance.

Holding

Yes, the Nahns' repudiation excused further performance of contractual conditions, but it did not excuse delay in seeking specific performance.

Reasoning

The Nahns repudiated the purchase contract when they asserted that Soffer's rights ended because the transaction had not closed by the option-expiration date. That position was legally incorrect because Soffer's acceptance had already formed a contract and the agreement allowed a reasonable time for closing.

A party's manifestation that it will not substantially perform its own promise waives and excuses the other party's performance of conditions induced by that repudiation. Accordingly, the repudiation excused Soffer and Ten-Eighteen from further contractual performance, including performance that depended on the Nahns' willingness to convey.

But excusal from performance is not the same as an unlimited right to wait before asserting an equitable remedy. The repudiation did not relieve appellants of the obligation to act with reasonable diligence if they wanted a court to order specific performance.

Issue #3

Whether laches barred Soffer and Ten-Eighteen's counterclaim for specific performance.

Holding

Yes, the unreasonable and prejudicial delay barred specific performance.

Reasoning

Specific performance is an equitable remedy, not a remedy available as of right. A court may withhold it when granting the requested relief would be inequitable, and a party seeking specific performance must present a stronger case than a party merely defending against such relief.

Laches applies when a party who knows the facts supporting its rights unreasonably delays asserting those rights for an excessive period and the opposing party suffers legal detriment. The inquiry considers the length of delay, the reason for it, its effect on the other party, and the overall fairness of allowing the claim.

Soffer waited about twenty-one months after exercising the option before setting a closing date and seeking to enforce the purchase. The delay was not adequately justified by the Nahns' repudiation or by the prospect of rezoning. Although zoning approval could take more than a year, the record did not show it required twenty-one months, and no rezoning petition was filed until nearly a year after Soffer exercised the option.

The delay also prejudiced the Nahns. The property appreciated substantially while appellants delayed, and Soffer failed to pay the property taxes required by the option. Even if repudiation excused the tax-payment condition as a matter of contract performance, the unpaid taxes and appreciation showed the adverse effect of the delay for purposes of laches. On these facts, allowing appellants to compel a sale would be unfair.

Issue #4

Whether the trial court properly quieted title in the Nahns after denying specific performance.

Holding

Yes, the evidence supported a declaration that the Nahns' title was good against Soffer and Ten-Eighteen.

Reasoning

Once laches barred appellants' claim for specific performance, they could not enforce any claimed contractual right to acquire the property. The record therefore supported the trial court's conclusion that neither Soffer nor Ten-Eighteen held an enforceable interest adverse to the Nahns' title.

Because the trial court made no detailed findings, the appellate court was required to presume it resolved factual matters in a manner consistent with its judgment. The judgment was supportable under the reasonable theory that laches defeated the counterclaim, so the court affirmed the quiet-title decree.