Laporte v. Blum

2015 WL 3935297 (2015)

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

Laporte (Ps) are the grandchildren of the former owners and the grandchildren’s sugaring business. Blum (Ds) are Ps' aunts and uncles. Lawrence and Ruth Burgess (Grandparents), now deceased, owned and lived on the Underhill land in question. They had run a sugarhouse on the land, with about 2,000 taps. In 2001 they realized the lines needed to be replaced and, at 80 and 81 years of age, they decided to stop sugaring. In 2004, their grandsons Ps hung a few buckets - perhaps 150 - and in 2005 started buying new sugaring equipment. The Grandparents put in about $10,000 to help with the roughly $52,000 worth of equipment. In 2005 they had about 1,000 taps going. Ps registered their trade name (Burgess Sugarhouse) in 2004. Ps would not have invested the $52,000 if they had not been assured by their Grandparents that they could continue to sugar on the property. The Grandparents offered to give Ps the land, but the boys declined. The Grandparents met with lawyers to work out an estate plan, which ended up as follows: the land would be given to D’s in equal shares, and P would be given an option to buy the land. There would also be a lease allowing them to keep sugaring prior to execution of the option. Ds objected to the option. The property was deeded to the five children (the four Ds plus the mother of Ps) with Lawrence and Ruth reserving a life estate. The lease and option (the Option) were executed. The lease runs until May 2021, with an option to renew for another fifteen years. The Option permits Ps to buy the land for $400,000. There is one an option to buy the residence and one for the balance of the land. Each is priced at $200,000. Both options would expire if not exercised within nine months after the later of both Grandparents’ deaths. Ds claim that the fair market value was higher than $400,000 both at the time the Option was issued and as of July 2014. However, there is no other evidence as to fair market value. The option was granted for Ten Dollars consideration. In 2010, the Grandfather revised his will. It leaves a one-quarter interest in the real estate to each of Ds, but not to the fifth daughter, Ps’ mother. The will also states that it is the Grandfather’s intent “to provide my grandsons the benefits of the option and lease” referenced therein. Ps continue to run a sugaring operation on the property after the Grandparents’ deaths. The Grandparents both died in 2013. Ds sent a letter to Ps saying that “the offer represented by the Option is hereby withdrawn, and . . . no purported exercise of the Option by you hereafter will be recognized as valid.” Ps sued Ds to enforce the option. Ds argue that because the ten dollars recited in the Option was never paid, the Option was not supported by consideration and is therefore unenforceable.