Oliver v. Ball

136 A.3d 162 (2016)

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

P entered into a sale of real estate contract with Ball (Ds) for the purchase of two tracts of land containing approximately 71.5 acres. Ds failed to convey the Property. P sued Ds for breach of contract, seeking specific performance and/or monetary damages. P's claim for specific performance was severed from his claim for damages and proceeded to a non-jury trial. The court found that Ds breached the contract. P testified in support of specific performance. P testified that 'it was a wooded property with some open fields, some old farmland, with a, like a wet weather stream running through it. It was hilly. Wasn't terribly hilly but it was sloping like all other property in Butler County.' P planned to purchase the Property for investment purposes. P's plans were to hold it for a long-term investment. At that time I was still in the timber business, and there was some timber on the Property that I thought could be harvested.' P testified that the property was big so it could be subdivided in the future for further development. Of course, it had all the mineral rights coming with it, so that was something that I hoped to put into my business in the future. It was only five miles as the crow flies from P's home, so that is important, to try to keep my investments within a reasonable distance from my home and where I work.' P testified that the sum of the parts of this property are much more valuable than the whole. Ds moved for a nonsuit, arguing that P failed to establish that he lacked an adequate remedy at law. The trial court agreed. It granted Ds motion for a nonsuit and denied specific performance. P filed a post-trial motion, seeking the removal of the nonsuit. P argued that he was entitled to specific performance because the Property was unique and, therefore, his remedy at law inadequate. The trial court denied P's post-trial motion. It held that P did not offer any evidence that this property had any unique characteristics, of import to him, that cannot be found or purchased elsewhere, even within Butler County. P did not present any evidence to establish that the value of the property was not quantifiable in money damages. P appealed.