Case Name: James WOLCOTT and Bonnie Wolcott, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Collin BOOTH and Norma Booth, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents
Court: Idaho Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Idaho
Decision Date: 1980-04-01
Citations: 101 Idaho 89
Docket Number: No. 13259
Parties: James WOLCOTT and Bonnie Wolcott, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Collin BOOTH and Norma Booth, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Idaho Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 89–93

Head Matter:
609 P.2d 156
James WOLCOTT and Bonnie Wolcott, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Collin BOOTH and Norma Booth, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents.
No. 13259.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
April 1, 1980.
Michael O. Douglas, of Duffin, Douglas & Crowley, Burley, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Herman E. Bedke, of Nielson & Bedke, Burley, for defendants-respondents.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs-appellants Wolcotts entered into an earnest money agreement with defendants-respondents Booth which related to the purchase and sale of real property. Thereafter, the Wolcotts brought this action for specific performance. Attached to plaintiffs' complaint and relied upon in plaintiffs' complaint was the earnest money agreement, a printed form bearing an Idaho Association of Realtors imprint and prepared by a real estate broker. Upon defendants' motion, the district court dismissed the Wolcotts' action because their complaint failed to state a claim for relief. Matheson v. Harris, 96 Idaho 759, 536 P.2d 754 (1975); Luke v. Conrad, 96 Idaho 221, 526 P.2d 181 (1974).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err. Costs to respondents.