Case Title: Bursack v. Moore

Citation: 439 P.2d 993

Docket Number: 

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1968-04-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
439 P.2d 993 (1968) Verna BURSACK, Plaintiff in Error, v. Harold E. MOORE and Bernice D. Moore, Defendants in Error. No. 23015. Supreme Court of Colorado, In Department. April 15, 1968. Rehearing Denied May 6, 1968. *994 Johnson & McLachlan, Lamar, for plaintiff in error. Carl M. Shinn, Lamar, for defendants in error. KELLEY, Justice. The plaintiff, Verna Bursack, is the owner of a 240 acre farm, the subject matter of this litigation. The defendants, Harold and Bernice Moore, since shortly after the death of Mr. Bursack, have been tenants on plaintiff's farm. The controversy is the outgrowth of an instrument relating to the subject property, referred to as Exhibit "A," which the parties executed in January 1966. The litigation has, to say the least, an unusual trial court history. All but one issue was settled in the first phase of the trial which was a trial to the court. The remaining issue was determined by a jury after the granting of a new trial for that purpose only. See R.C.P.Colo. 59(a). The jury determination of the issue was contrary to that of the trial judge in the first instance. Judgment for the defendants decreeing specific performance of the agreement was entered. The writ of error is directed to this second judgment. We do not deem it necessary to detail the facts. Those essential to an understanding of the issues will be capsuled. Exhibit A is a printed form of agreement labeled, "Agreement For Sale and Purchase of Property With Escrow Agreement." The banker who prepared the document upon the defendants' request filled in the names of the parties as seller (plaintiff) and purchasers (defendants), accurately described the 240 acres, made the American State Bank of Granada the escrow agent, and provided that the purchasers pay the sum of $50,000 to the seller, in the following manner: *995 The plaintiff in her complaint alleged that "Exhibit A is an option," and "That on or about February 3, 1966, plaintiff, by her attorney, notified the defendants that the plaintiff `has and does withdraw the offer contained in the option to sell.'" The foregoing is sufficient background to indicate the issues that existed up to the morning of the first trial, July 14, 1966. The trial was preceded by a conference between counsel and the trial judge, the purpose of which was to clarify and limit the issues of fact and law to be determined. During the conference, plaintiff, over objection, asked leave to add paragraph twelve to her complaint. The court permitted the amendment and counsel for defendants then consented to proceed with the hearing. The amendment added a completely new issue. It, in substance, asserted that the plaintiff had signed Exhibit A to enable defendants to ascertain the amount of loan the defendants could obtain from the Federal Land Bank, and "that it was the intention of the parties to see whether the defendants could obtain a loan sufficiently high to permit them to purchase the property from the plaintiff at a higher price than that stated in Exhibit A." The trial was concluded on July 14, 1966. On September 8, 1966, the court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment which, in brief, read as follows: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law The defendants filed a motion for new trial and the court summarily granted it. We find, contrary to plaintiff's contention, that a motion filed on Monday, the eleventh day after the entry of judgment, is timely. See R.C.P.Colo. 6(a). Neither do we find any merit in the contention that the court erred in failing to specify in its order "the grounds of the new trial," as required by R.C.P.Colo. 59(d). That part of the first judgment which provided that "in view of defendants' objection to the amendment of plaintiff's complaint to include an additional claim, which the defendants [objected to and] were not prepared to meet," has to be read into the order granting the new trial. Although the better practice would be to adhere strictly to the rule, the deficiency can be supplied by the preceding order. Plaintiff's second assignment of error: The judgment should be reversed because the agreement is an option. Exhibit A, as a matter of law, was not an option. Plaintiff relies on Anderson v. E. H. Pihlstrom Investment Company, 87 Colo. 441, 288 P. 414, in which the agreement in issue provided that "if the party of the second part shall first make the payments * * * the party of the first part hereby gives the party of the second part the right of an option * * *." (Emphasis added.) No such option language appears in Exhibit A. *996 Plaintiff next claims that "the agreement was revoked prior to its delivery and acceptance by defendants." The plaintiff also grounded a motion for directed verdict on the premise that the agreement had not been delivered to her and was therefor not a binding agreement. We note, however, that in her complaint the plaintiff alleged the execution of the agreement and, in her reply to defendants' counterclaim, she alleged: "Plaintiff admits the execution of Exhibit `A' attached to the complaint, * * * alleges the same was an option * * *." In the findings of fact incident to the judgment first rendered by the court it found, inferentially at least, that it was not revoked prior to delivery and acceptance by the defendants. In Instruction No. 1, the court instructed the jury that the plaintiff In Instruction No. 4, the court, after stating that the jury was to determine the intent of the parties in signing the agreement, stated: It is implicit in the jury verdict not only that the plaintiff executed and delivered the agreement to the defendants, but that the defendants executed and accepted the agreement as binding upon themselves. The jury accepted the defendants' version as to the intent of the parties and rejected that of the plaintiff. Since there was competent evidence to support the finding, it will not be disturbed on review. Initially, the plaintiff admitted the execution of Exhibit A, but alleged it was an option. Then, by the amendment of her position as set forth in paragraph 12, she adhered to the admission as to the execution of the agreement, but claimed that it was delivered conditionally or for a limited purpose. In effect, plaintiff admitted the signing and delivery of the instrument, but denied its efficacy. For that reason the court did not err in refusing to give plaintiff's proffered instruction on the alleged issue of delivery. The plaintiff challenges the sufficiency of the judgment. The judgment: Reference to the agreement will supply all of the essential details as to the responsibilities of both parties in performing the agreement, except as to the time for performance. Where, as here, no time for performance is fixed by the agreement, the law fills the void by resorting to "the doctrine of performance within a reasonable time." Shull v. Sexton, 154 Colo. 311, 390 P.2d 313. The court properly instructed the jury on the sole issue submitted to it. We find no merit in the other assignments of error. It would unduly prolong this opinion to further discuss them. The judgment is affirmed. MOORE, C. J., and DAY, J., concur.