Bunn v. Offutt

222 S.E.2d 522 (1976)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Temco, Inc. conveyed to Harvey and Rosabelle Wynn property known as 900 South Wakefield Street in Arlington. The Wynns had signed a contract of purchase prepared by the seller's agent. In this contract is found the following provision: 'Use of apartment swimming pool to be available to purchaser and his family.' The Wynns testified that the agent, Lawrence, told them that the use of the pool went with the ownership of the home being purchased and that subsequent purchasers would have the right to use the pool. The Wynns said the sales agent emphasized that use of this pool would be a desirable feature in the event they subsequently decided to sell the property. No reference was made to the pool in the deed from Temco to the Wynns. Ps contracted to buy the property from the Wynns. No reference to the pool was made in the contract. Ps were told by the agent involved that the use of the pool went with the purchase of the property. The deed conveying the property from the Wynns to Ps contains no reference to the pool. Ps’ request to use the pool was refused. D, Temco, Dittmar, and Sonnett all have their offices in the same room of a building situated on the property where the pool is located. Sonnett was the exclusive sales agency for Ds, has its office in the same building. The Wynns had agreed to purchase another house, then under construction, from D provided Sonnett could sell their current 'pool' home. P testified that as an inducement for them to increase by $750 their offering price for the Wynn property, Sonnett stressed the value of using the swimming pool, and represented that pool membership in a club elsewhere would cost them an initial $300 fee plus annual dues. Sonnett attempted to persuade D to grant pool privileges to Ps, but without success. Sonnett then offered to purchase the house from Ps. This offer was refused. P sued D. D testified that he never intended to extend the privilege of using the swimming pool beyond the original purchasers of certain houses. D testified he never intended the right to run with the land and inure to successors in interest and had never extended pool privileges to anyone beyond the first purchasers. The trial court agreed with D that he never intended an easement and Ps appealed.