Opinion ID: 2575868
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Michael Adams Should Have Been Awarded Interest.

Text: Michael Adams argues that the court, having found that he was obliged to sell the property following Don Adams's attempt to exercise the option to purchase, erred by not awarding interest to him on the amounts Don Adams had to pay to buy the property. The amended final judgment selected May 1, 2000 as the date the property would have been purchased had Michael Adams not refused to sell. The superior court awarded interest to Don Adams on the award of one-half the environmental phase two assessment, the rental payments made since May 1, 2000, [19] and attorney's fees and costs. Michael Adams asserts that he should have been awarded interest on the $30,000 earnest money payment that would have been due on or about February 1, 2000 and on the $270,000 balance of the purchase price that would have been due on May 1, 2000. According to the lease, the balance was to have been paid within ninety days of the earnest money agreement. Therefore, February 1, 2000 is approximately the latest the earnest money could have been paid to accomplish a May 1, 2000 purchase. We have stated that [w]here the vendee has retained possession, . . . the vendor is entitled to interest on the unpaid purchase money, even if the delay in performance of the contract is attributable to the vendor. [20] The reason for this rule is that, because we are attempting to enforce the contract as written, we will attempt to place the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed in a timely manner. [21] Michael Adams, therefore, should have been awarded interest. We remand for adjustment of the amended final judgment accordingly.