Opinion ID: 2171575
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Agreement of August 14, 1975

Text: Appellant claims that despite the breach of his duties as lessee his option to purchase under the 1972 contract was revived, or a new option right was created, by a second agreement reached between him and the Roths on August 14, 1975, two months after the original contract was breached. Appellant rests his new, or revived, option right exclusively on this later written agreement. He does not assert the existence of any independent oral contracts. The agreement relied upon by appellant is, in fact, a letter sent by the Roths and Malmstens to the Small Business Administration seeking the aid of that agency and the Dirigo Bank and Trust Company in effectuating a proposed sale of the disputed property to Malmsten by the Roths. It is not clear whether the signatories to this letter sought further financing from the Small Business Administration, but it is apparent that the agency did hold an existing mortgage on the property. In the letter, the Roths sought to have that mortgage subordinated to a purchase-money mortgage which they hoped to take back on a sale to Malmsten. As part of the proposed arrangement, the Roths also wanted to be relieved from any and all liability to Dirigo Bank. The August 14 agreement is silent as to any prior agreement or arrangement between the Roths and Malmsten. It makes no reference to any breach of the 1972 lease agreement. It does not purport to revive rights that had already terminated. The position of the respective parties vis-a-vis the 1972 lease and option agreement was unaffected by the letter of August 14, 1975. In order for appellant to prevail in his assertion that he held an existing right or interest in the Roth property at the time summary judgment was entered against him it must, therefore, be established that through the August 14 agreement he acquired some new right in the property. It is apparent from the face of the letter, however, that the agreement contained therein was in fact a proposed four-party transaction and that whatever understandings there may have been between appellant and the Roths were conditioned on the aid and assent of the Small Business Administration and Dirigo Bank. The opening paragraph expressly states that the arrangements proposed in the letter are the tentative positions of the signatories. At the bottom of the writing, beneath the signatures of the Roths and Malmstens are spaces for two additional signatures. Seen and Agreed to by the Small Business Administration. By___________________________ Seen and Agreed to by the Dirigo Bank and Trust Company. By __________________________ Both signature lines are blank. Neither in his pleadings nor in his affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment does appellant aver that the Small Business Administration agreed to the proposal or that the Dirigo Bank even saw the letter of August 14, 1975. By its form and content the August 14 letter establishes that without the aid and assent of the Small Business Administration and Dirigo Bank the tentative positions of the appellant and the Roths were to remain conditional and nonbinding. The presiding justice ruled correctly that appellant has no present right or interest in the premises. Summary judgment for the plaintiffs was properly granted. The entry is: Appeal denied. Judgment affirmed. DUFRESNE, A. R. J., sat at oral argument as Chief Justice, but retired prior to the preparation of the opinion. He has joined the opinion as Active Retired Justice. POMEROY, WERNICK, ARCHIBALD, DELAHANTY, JJ., and DUFRESNE, A. R. J., concurring.