ILNews

COA rules on right of first refusal issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that the right of first refusal set forth in a purchase agreement of land between neighbors could only be exercised between the two neighbors and didn’t apply to the sale of land by an estate.

Richard and Elizabeth Ryan purchased a piece of land from Russell and Mary Keen in 1972. According to a purchase agreement, the Ryans had right of first refusal if the Keens ever elected to sell their property adjacent to the Ryans’ land. After Russell and Mary died, the estate sold the property to another couple without providing the Ryans a chance to exercise the right.

The Ryans sued and, in turn, the estate of Mary Keen sued Agri-Town and Lawyers Title Insurance Corp., alleging those companies were contracted to perform a title search and issue/guarantee title insurance upon which the estate relied to convey clear title to the property. The search didn’t reveal any right of interest as alleged by the Ryans.

The trial court granted summary judgment for Agri-Town and Lawyers Title, finding the right of first refusal ended at the death of the last surviving seller, Mary, and was now unenforceable.  In Richard and Elizabeth Ryan v. Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. and Elaine E. English d/b/a Agri-Town Agency, No. 56A03-1101-PL-75, the Court of Appeals affirmed after examining the terms and language of the right of first refusal as set forth in the purchase agreement.

“We are not persuaded that the designated materials and the terms of the Purchase Agreement demonstrate clear evidence of the intent of the parties to the Purchase Agreement that the right of first refusal at issue here was to continue beyond the lifetimes of the Keens as the grantors of the right,” wrote Judge Elaine Brown. “If the parties to the Purchase Agreement had intended to bind each others’ heirs or personal representatives in connection with the rights of first refusal, they could easily have so provided.”

Judge John Baker concurred in a separate opinion.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT