Title: Hinsdale v. Sherman

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Hinsdale v. Sherman (2000-030); 171 Vt. 605; 764 A.2d 1218 

[Filed 8-Nov-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2000-030

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2000

Clark W. Hinsdale, Jr.	               }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Chittenden Superior Court
                                       }	
Crosby and Helen Sherman, and	       }
Arthur and Martha Burleigh	       }	DOCKET NO. S1129-98 CnC

                                                Trial Judge: Matthew I. Katz

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff Clark Hinsdale appeals from a decision of the Chittenden
  Superior Court granting  defendants Crosby and Helen Sherman's  motion for
  judgment on the pleadings pursuant to V.R.C.P.  12(c).  The court ruled
  that defendants' purchase of a lot of land according to an existing
  purchase  and sale agreement did not trigger plaintiff's later-granted
  option to purchase the same land.  On  appeal, plaintiff argues that
  defendants took the land subject to the option contract because, at the 
  time of purchase, defendants had notice of the option.  We affirm.

       This action arose from a series of agreements that defendants Arthur
  and Martha Burleigh  made regarding the conveyance of Lot No. 3 of the
  Cedar Crest at Spear Development.  On April 11,  1994, the Burleighs
  entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the Shermans to purchase
  Lot  No. 3 for $51,000.  On May 31, 1994, the Burleighs executed a "Right
  of First Refusal" to plaintiff  for Lot No. 3.  Specifically, the Burleighs
  granted plaintiff the right to purchase Lot No. 3 "[i]n the  event that
  [Burleighs] shall not convey lot 3 according to the terms of a certain
  purchase and sale  agreement between [Burleighs] and [Shermans], and
  amendments thereto" (emphasis added).  On  June 10, 1994, the Burleighs
  conveyed Lot No. 3 to the Shermans for $47,000 by warranty deed.  At  the
  time of the closing, the Shermans knew about the agreement between
  plaintiff and the Burleighs.

       Plaintiff brought suit, claiming that by reducing the price of Lot No.
  3 from $51,000 to  $47,000, defendants failed to convey the property
  "according to the terms" of the Sherman/Burleigh  Purchase and Sale
  Agreement and this reduction triggered his right to purchase the lot.  The 
  Shermans moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to V.R.C.P. 12(c). 
  The trial court held that  the minor price reduction did not trigger
  plaintiff's option to purchase under the Hinsdale/Burleigh  agreement
  because the Burleighs did not break free from their contract with the
  Shermans.  Plaintiff  appeals, arguing that because the Shermans knew 

 

  of the Hinsdale/Burleigh agreement when they closed on Lot No. 3, they took
  the property subject to  plaintiff's option.

       On review of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, we will consider
  "all the factual  allegations in the pleadings of the nonmoving party and
  all reasonable inferences that can be drawn  from them to be true and
  allegations to the contrary by the moving party to be false."  In re Estate
  of  Gorton, 167 Vt. 357, 358,