Pullman, Comley, Bradley, And Reeves v. Tuck-It-Away, Bridgeport, Inc.

611 A.2d 435 (1992)

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

D1 as seller, and D, as buyer, signed a contract for the sale of real property. D deposited $100,000 in escrow with D1's attorneys, Pullman, Comley, Bradley, and Reeves. Ds agreed in writing to extend the closing date until December 10, 1988. No closing took place. On December 14, 1988, D1 received a letter from D purporting to cancel the contract on the basis of three alleged title defects: (1) a lis pendens dated August 9, 1983, (2) a certificate of attachment dated June 27, 1988, and (3) a three-foot nonconformity in one of the lengths in the legal description of the property as referenced in the contract. Before December 10, 1988, D1's attorneys had in their possession a release of the August 9, 1983 lis pendens and a release of the June 27, 1988 attachment. At the time of execution of the contract, neither Ds were aware that the legal description contained an incorrect length. On September 16, 1988, attorneys for both Ds received a survey from Preferred Land Title Services, Inc., showing a correct legal description of the property. At no time prior to the December 12, 1988 letter did D ever advise D1 or complain about the error in the legal description of the property contained in the contract. As December 10 approached, D was short of the total funds necessary to complete the deal. It became clear to D1 that D would not be able to close the deal on December 10, 1988, but needed two more weeks. D then discovered the discrepancy in the property description. D then sent the letter to cancel the contract because of D1's inability to convey title to the premises in accordance with the terms of the contract. The letter was not mailed to Tuck-it-away until the end of the day on December 12, 1988, and D1 did not receive the letter until December 14, 1988. The trial court ruled against D on this claim, finding that either the defect was minor, or was curable by December 10, 1988, and concluded that 'there was no basis for D's claim that D1's title was defective.' D appealed.