Title: Anderson v. Wooten

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

549 So. 2d 40 (1989)
Delano D. ANDERSON and Joann B. Anderson
v.
William J. WOOTEN and United Farm Agency, Inc.
William J. WOOTEN
v.
Delano D. ANDERSON and Joann B. Anderson.
87-968, 87-1013.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 30, 1989.
Rehearing Denied August 25, 1989.
Jack W. Smith, Dothan, for appellants/cross-appellees.
Henry F. Lee III of Lee and Fleming, Geneva, for appellees/cross-appellants.
*41 SHORES, Justice.
Delano D. and Joann B. Anderson appeal from a judgment granting William J. Wooten specific performance of a real estate sales contract, and incidental damages. Wooten cross-appeals, arguing that the damages awarded were inadequate.
In February 1986, the Andersons listed their approximately 180-acre farm with United Farm Agency, Inc., a real estate agency. In the fall of 1986, Danny Fulford, the broker with United Farm Agency who was handling the Anderson farm listing, began discussing with Wooten the purchase of the farm.
On November 12, 1986, after several proposals and counter proposals were made between the Andersons and Wooten, a sales contract with an attached addendum was signed by the parties, providing for a sale price of $264,346.76, with a down payment of $70,000. The remainder of the purchase price was to be financed by the Andersons at an interest rate of 8.63 per cent for 25 years. Wooten was to take possession of the farm by April 1, 1987. The addendum to the sales contract provided:
At Wooten's request, the following contingency clause was included in the sales contract:
The contract was duly executed by the parties and Wooten paid $5,000 as earnest money that was held by Mr. Fulford in escrow until the transaction was closed. The closing date was scheduled for November 26, 1986.
On November 14, 1986, Wooten's attorney advised the Andersons by letter that the closing was scheduled for November 26, 1986, and that:
On November 18, 1986, six days after the contract was signed, the Andersons sent the following letter to Fulford:
"(6) The buyer is to make no improvements on existing property beyond the amount of the initial down payment until *42 such time as the mortgage has been satisfied. However, existing improvements are to be maintained in a satisfactory condition. No structu[r]al alterations is to be made to house.
"(13) Monthly payments are due on time; if more than thirty (30) days late full amount of principal becomes due.
Wooten did not agree to all these modifications, and the closing did not take place as scheduled on November 26. It was rescheduled for December 1, 1986, but the Andersons failed to attend.
On December 3, 1986, Wooten filed this suit for specific performance and damages. The trial judge denied the Andersons' demand for a jury trial. After finding that Wooten had met all his obligations under the sales contract, the trial court ordered the Andersons to perform specifically under the terms of the contract as originally executed, and awarded Wooten $2,371.01 for incidental damages.
The Andersons appeal. Wooten filed a cross-appeal contesting the amount of the judgment for incidental damages. We affirm.
The Andersons contend that the contingency clause regarding Mr. Wooten's ability to obtain a contract with a poultry company to build two additional "broiler houses" *43 could not be waived unilaterally by Wooten because they allege that it benefited them by increasing their security under the mortgage. We disagree.
In LaGrave v. Jones, 336 So. 2d 1330, 1332 (Ala. 1976), which involved a sales contract contingent upon the buyer's obtaining zoning approval, we held:
After considering the language of the contingency, and the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, we are of the opinion that the trial court was justified in concluding from all of the evidence that the benefit of the contingency ran solely to Mr. Wooten. The contingency clause was inserted in the sales contract at Wooten's request to ensure that he would be able (1) to continue raising chickens under contract, and (2) to build two additional "broiler houses" to increase the productivity of the farm.
Fulford, the real estate broker, testified that he had handled several poultry farm transactions, and that the contingency clause was standard in all such transactions. He testified that the purpose of the contingency is to ensure that a poultry company will approve the buyer to grow chickens under contract, and, in this case, to assure Wooten that he would be able to expand the farm's poultry production.
Wooten testified that, after inquiring into the possibilities of renewing the Andersons' present contract with ConAgra, Inc., a poultry company, and the possibilities of obtaining a new contract with Showell Farms to build two additional "broiler houses," he was reasonably satisfied that he would be able to obtain the contracts, and, therefore, waived the condition.
William Holloway, a representative of Showell Farms who meets with poultry growers, testified that he told Wooten that Showell Farms was in the process of expanding its operation, and that it would be adding growers beginning in July 1987. Showell Farms did, in fact, add growers in an area near the Anderson farm. In answering a hypothetical question, presuming that the existing and new "broiler houses" met Showell Farms' specifications, Holloway testified that, in his opinion, Wooten would have been added as a contract grower within a couple of months after he was to take possession of the farm on April 1, 1987.
The evidence supports the trial court's finding that the contingency was intended for the buyer's benefit. In fact, the evidence is without dispute on the issue. The Andersons signed the contract and later consulted a lawyer. They attempted to add conditions to the agreement after it was signed and agreed upon. The buyer was not obligated to agree to these additional conditions. As to the additional chicken houses, the record supports the alternative conclusion reached by the trial courtthat it was met, or that the buyer was free to waive it, or that it was solely for his benefit. The trial court heard the evidence and saw the witnesses. We have not been shown error to reverse.
In regard to the Andersons' argument that, due to the unilateral contingency, there was no mutuality of contract, we hold that the contingency in this case was a protective provision that does not render the contract void for want of mutuality. See, Industrial Machinery, Inc. v. Creative Displays, Inc., 344 So. 2d 743 (Ala. 1977)
The Andersons contend that the trial court erred in granting incidental damages to Wooten in an equity action where specific performance was ordered.
The trial court, applying equitable principles, was authorized to make those findings. Suter v. Arrowhead Investment Co., 387 So. 2d 815 (Ala.1980); Grayson v. Boyette, 451 So. 2d 798 (Ala.1984).
The trial court granted Wooten, as incidental damages, one half of the profits from the poultry operation, amounting to $8,412.40, as specified in the sales contract; rent for the dwelling on the farm, amounting to $1,984; rent from the peanut allotment, *44 amounting to $992.82; and rent for the hay pasture, amounting to $433.81; totaling $11,823.03. The trial court found, however, that the Andersons were entitled to a set-off for accrued interest on the down payment, which totalled $9,452.02. The trial court then entered a judgment in favor of Wooten for incidental damages in the amount of $2,371.01. We find no error in this aspect of the trial court's judgment.
In his cross-appeal, Wooten contends that he is additionally entitled to out-of-pocket expenses, attorney fees for the period between July 24, 1987, and September 21, 1987, and accountant fees. We disagree, and we affirm the trial court's judgment on the cross-appeal.
It is within the sound judicial discretion of the trial judge to make findings regarding incidental damages when balancing the equities between the parties in specific performance cases. See, Wray v. Harris, 350 So. 2d 409 (Ala.1977). Absent a clear abuse of that discretion, or palpable error, such findings will not be disturbed on appeal.
In regard to Wooten's claims for loss of profits because of his inability to raise peanuts and to expand the poultry production, the trial court in this case did not err in holding that such damages were too speculative, conjectural, and remote because Wooten had no established past experience in raising poultry.
The Andersons finally contend that the trial court erred in refusing their demand for a jury trial on the issue of damages. In exercising its equitable powers, the trial court awards such incidental damages in an attempt to balance the equities in order to protect the rights of all the parties, and to do complete justice between them. See, Wray v. Harris, supra.
A balancing of the equities, by awarding incidental damages to do complete justice between the parties, falls within the equity jurisdiction of the trial court. A jury trial is inappropriate in an equitable action. See, Pugh v. Calloway, 295 Ala. 139, 325 So. 2d 135 (1976).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.