ILNews

Judges hold option to buy real estate valid

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The purchaser of real estate through an option executed years earlier didn’t make the option unenforceable against the owner’s estate by not tendering the purchase price when exercising his option to buy the land, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today.

The issue arose in Estate of Jane H. Collins v. T. William McKinney, No. 02A05-1004-EU-286, in which T. William McKinney had an option from 1990 with Jane and Robert Collins to purchase real estate from them on which there was a car dealership. McKinney had to deliver written notice of his intent to exercise the option to the personal representative of the estate within 90 days of the death of the last to die of Robert and Jane.

Jane died last, and upon learning this, McKinney sought to exercise the option by sending a letter to Ray Collins, the personal representative of Jane’s estate. The option didn’t include the purchase price. Ray never responded to McKinney and later claimed after McKinney filed suit that the lack of offering the purchase price made the option unenforceable.

McKinney filed a verified petition for specific performance to require the estate to sell the property. The trial court granted him summary judgment, ordered the estate to close the sale, and later awarded damages and attorney’s fees to McKinney.

The estate correctly argued on appeal that no rule has been mentioned in Indiana directly on the question of whether an option is binding only upon tender of performance, wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey. But Indiana law doesn’t require a tender of performance before an optionor is in default and specific cases in Indiana undercut the estate’s reliance on cases from other jurisdictions.

The judges citied Wolvos v. Meyer, 668 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. 1996), to affirm that proper notice is all that was required to exercise the option and McKinney gave proper notice to Ray.

The Court of Appeals also affirmed that McKinney could be awarded damages even though the court awarded specific performance, but they remanded for a recalculation of the amount McKinney is entitled to. The court also vacated the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to McKinney and remanded for the trial court to determine the amount of fees related to McKinney’s efforts to close on the property.

The judges affirmed the trial court in all other respects.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT