Opinion ID: 1643814
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the chancellor erred in denying White specific performance of the real-estate contract without an easement on tract nine.

Text: ¶ 13. White argues that the real-estate contract clearly indicated that the properties were not burdened by an easement, and therefore, he is entitled to specific performance of the contract without the easement on tract nine. He submits that a valid, enforceable contract exists, and that Cooke must convey the property as shown in the auction brochure. He acknowledges that the driveway on tract ten extends onto tract nine, but insists that he is entitled to sole use of this driveway and that Ross has sufficient frontage without the easement. He argues that Cooke acted in bad faith by placing their own financial interests ahead of White's contractual rights in granting Ross the easement and trying to force him to accept this condition. ¶ 14. For specific performance to be granted, a contract must be reasonably complete and reasonably definite on material terms. Leach v. Tingle, 586 So.2d 799, 802 (Miss.1991) (citing Duke v. Whatley, 580 So.2d 1267, 1272-74, (Miss. 1991)). A contract is said to enjoy the level of specificity predicate to enforceability: if it contains matter which will enable the court under proper rules of construction to ascertain its terms, including consideration of the general circumstances of the parties and if necessary relevant extrinsic evidence. Leach, 586 So.2d at 802 (quoting Duke, 580 So.2d at 1274). If the contract does not pass this test of specificity, it should be rendered unenforceable, and specific performance should be denied. Leach, 586 So.2d at 802 (citing Duke, 580 So.2d at 1272-74). ¶ 15. A contract may be set aside, however, where both parties at the time of the agreement were operating under a mutual mistake of fact. See, e.g., Greer v. Higgins, 338 So.2d 1233, 1236 (Miss.1976) (quoting 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 144, p. 894). Such mistake may apply to the nature of the contract, the identity of the person with whom it is made, or the identity or existence of the subject matter.. . . Greer, 338 So.2d at 1236 (quoting 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 144 at 894). In any event, the mistake must relate to a past or present material fact to relieve a party(s) from liability. Greer, 338 So.2d at 1236 (quoting 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 144 at 894). ¶ 16. The chancellor found that there was a contract to sell land by deed closing within thirty days; however, there was an error in the description. He determined that the as is clause within the contract afforded Cooke an escape clause. He found the forty feet of frontage and the easement to be vital important facts to the contract, but stated that Cooke could not convey something that they did not own. He construed the later surveys, which White rejected, as being in the nature of [] counter-offers. He then dismissed the action, concluding that there could be no closing within thirty days and there cannot be specific performance of the sale of the property. . . . ¶ 17. Our review of the chancellor's opinion leads us to conclude that he denied specific performance because the parties failed to have a meeting of the minds on a material term of the contract. Thus, he found that no enforceable contract existed due to a mutual mistake and dismissed the entire action, including Cooke's counterclaim. ¶ 18. We find that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in denying specific performance and dismissing the case. At the time of the contract, both parties were laboring under a mistaken belief that the driveway on tract ten did not intrude onto tract nine. The existence of the driveway constituted a material term in that it interfered with White's ability to access the property with his farm equipment [4] and afforded the sole means of ingress and egress to the house on tract ten. Thus, the driveway was an essential term of the contract based on its importance or substantial effect upon each tract. Because the parties were mistaken about a material fact, we find that the chancellor did not abuse his discretion in rescinding the contract. See Greer, 338 So.2d at 1236 (conveyance of property was set aside due to a mutual mistake of fact on the part of both of the parties to the contract). [5]