Case Title: Rappaport v. Estate of Banfield

Citation: 2007 VT 25

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2007-04-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rappaport v. Estate of Banfield (2005-399)

2007 VT 25

[Filed 06-Apr-2007]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 2007 VT 25

                                No. 2005-399


  Jerome Rappaport                               Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        Washington Superior Court


  Estate of Laura F. Banfield,                   January Term, 2007
  By and Through Its Executrix 
  Laura B. Hoguet and Duane Wells


  Matthew I. Katz, J.

  Michael Marks of Tarrant, Marks & Gillies, Montpelier, for
    Plaintiff-Appellant.

  L. Brooke Dingledine of Valsangiacomo, Detora & McQuesten, P.C., for
    Defendant-Appellee Banfield.

  Bernard D. Lambek of Zalinger Cameron & Lambek, P.C., Montpelier, for
    Defendant-Appellee.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., Wesley, Supr. J., and
            Allen, C.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  ALLEN, C.J.  (Ret.), Specially Assigned.  Plaintiff Jerome
  Rappaport appeals from the trial court's order granting summary judgment to
  defendants Estate of Laura F. Banfield and Duane Wells in this dispute
  involving a right of first refusal.  Plaintiff maintains that questions of
  material fact remain as to whether his right of first refusal was limited
  to a 25.1-acre parcel, and whether defendants improperly interfered with or
  violated this right.  We affirm.  
   
       ¶  2.  Plaintiff is a lawyer and land developer who owns a large
  amount of real property in East Montpelier.  In 1970, he purchased real
  property from a Mr. Knowles and thereby acquired a deeded right of first
  refusal to purchase, and an agricultural easement in, a 25.1-acre lot owned
  by Edward and Laura Banfield.  The Banfields owned several contiguous lots
  in East Montpelier, including the 25.1-acre lot noted above, an adjacent
  2.8-acre parcel, and a 50.4-acre parcel.  The Banfield house sat on the
  2.8-acre lot, and it had sweeping views across the undeveloped 25.1-acre
  parcel. Mr. Banfield passed away, and in 2002, Mrs. Banfield decided to
  sell all of her property.  Plaintiff wanted to purchase it and eventually
  offered Mrs. Banfield $400,000, but this offer was rejected. 

       ¶  3.  Mr. Wells was also interested in purchasing the property, and
  in November 2002,  he submitted two written offers to Mrs. Banfield.  He
  offered $150,000 for the 25.1-acre lot and $275,000 for the remaining
  acreage and home.  Mrs. Banfield found these offers acceptable and notified
  plaintiff of the impending sale of the 25.1-acre parcel.  Plaintiff filed a
  complaint against defendants, raising a breach of contract claim, and
  seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory damages. 
  Plaintiff argued in relevant part that defendants violated his right of
  first refusal by attempting to limit his right to only 25.1 acres,
  artificially inflating the price for this lot, and refusing to provide him
  the sales agreements for both parcels.  
   
       ¶  4.  In May 2003, after a hearing, the trial court issued a
  written order enjoining Mrs. Banfield from conveying the 25.1-acre parcel
  to Mr. Wells for three weeks to allow plaintiff to decide whether to
  exercise his right of first refusal.  The court rejected plaintiff's
  assertion that it should determine a reasonable price for the 25.1-acre
  parcel, finding the offer made by Mr. Wells  justified by logical and
  consistent factors.  As the court explained, Mr. Wells had valid reasons
  for making a high bid on the 25.1-acre parcel to prevent plaintiff from
  acquiring it, including preserving the spectacular views from the house on
  the larger parcel, keeping the property intact, and controlling the land
  itself.  If plaintiff acquired the lot, the agricultural easement held by
  plaintiff would be extinguished and the lot could be developed.  Because
  Mr. Wells planned to invest $200,000 to upgrade the Banfield house, it was
  important to him to prevent the development of the adjoining property.  The
  court found that these and other factors established that the $150,000
  offer was reasonable.

       ¶  5.  Shortly after the court's decision, plaintiff exercised his
  right of first refusal, and purchased the 25.1-acre lot for $150,000.  Mr.
  Wells purchased the remaining acreage and home.  Mr. Wells then moved for
  summary judgment on the remaining claims in plaintiff's complaint.  The
  court denied the motion, finding it premature as there had not yet been an
  adequate opportunity to conduct discovery.  In December 2004, Mr. Wells
  renewed the motion, and in July 2005, the court granted summary judgment to
  defendants.

       ¶  6.  In reaching its conclusion, the court first examined the scope
  of plaintiff's right of first refusal.  It was undisputed that plaintiff's
  deeded right applied only to the 25.1-acre lot.  Plaintiff claimed,
  however, that he and the Banfields shared a common understanding that the
  deeded right applied to all of the Banfield property, including the house. 
  Relying on In re Estate of Gorton, 167 Vt. 357, 361-62,