Opinion ID: 1255473
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: disparity of price

Text: The Koury Corporation's third assertion is that the trial court's ordering of specific performance was inequitable under the circumstances of the case. We decline to give any extended discussion to this issue for several reasons. First, it does not appear that this issue was seriously asserted at the trial. The matter was not raised in the defensive pleadings of Koury. The only reference to the current market value of the premises occurred in a cross-examination question posed to the plaintiff, Mr. Randolph, who was asked if he had had the property appraised when he arranged to purchase it. He indicated that he had and was asked the appraisal price and responded: I think it was ninety thousand. I'm not sure. We do not believe this testimony, which was obviously hearsay since Mr. Randolph referred to the out-of-court statement of a third party, the appraiser, was sufficient to raise the issue of a grossly disproportionate purchase price. Furthermore, the lessee paid the costs of improvements under the 1968 supplemental lease as indicated by the following language: the alteration and conversion to colonial design of the existing station building and improvements located upon the demised premises and the construction of a third bay thereto by Lessee at Lessee's expense. Obviously, the value of the improvements placed thereon by the Lessee would serve to enhance the market value of the property and would be a factor in determining if the initial $40,000 purchase price was inequitable. See Annot., 11 A.L.R.2d 390 (1950). Finally, we note that the trial judge made no reference to such an issue in his memorandum opinion. We have traditionally held as stated in Syllabus Point 1 of Mowery v. Hitt, 155 W.Va. 103, 181 S.E.2d 334 (1971): In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, this Court will not decide nonjurisdictional questions which were not considered and decided by the court from which the appeal has been taken. See also Wells v. Roberts, W.Va., 280 S.E.2d 266 (1981); Shackleford v. Catlett, W.Va., 244 S.E.2d 327 (1978). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. Affirmed.