Opinion ID: 2538217
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement

Text: The property is described in the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement as Bartschi Property, City ______, Zip 83252, legally described as approx. 500 acres mountain property. [1] In the addendum to the real estate agreement, the parties added Acreage: As deemed by Bear River [sic] County Platt and Tax Notices to be 512 acres. Survey ordered. The property was actually located in Bear Lake County. The three Bear Lake County tax notices that are referred to in Addendum A list the lots that the Bartschis own as well as the acreage of each; the lots total 512.46 acres. The record reflects that Ms. Bartschi provided these tax notices as well as a map to Garner and Flinders Realty. The record further shows that Garner and Edwards were shown the property by Don Bartschi and his son, Jeff, and the boundaries of the parcel were pointed out. The district court found that the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement failed to provide an adequate property description. The district court stated that the property description fails to provide any clue as to where the property is located, an exact amount of acreage to be sold or divine any exact property lines. The district court found that it would have to allow the introduction of parole [sic] evidence to determine whether to determine whether part or all of the holdings of Bartschi's were to be sold, or whether they were apportioning a partial amount. The district court determined that the description within the real estate contract was too ambiguous for the court to order specific performance or order damages related to non-performance. Specific performance is an extraordinary remedy that provides relief when legal remedies are inadequate. Kessler v. Tortoise Development, Inc., 134 Idaho 264, 270, 1 P.3d 292, 298 (2000). It is generally presumed that in an action for breach of a real estate purchase and sale agreement there is not an adequate remedy at law due to the perceived uniqueness of land. Id. (citing Perron v. Hale, 108 Idaho 578, 701 P.2d 198 (1985)). A greater degree of certainty is required to sustain a decree for specific performance than is required to sustain a judgment for damages at law. Thorn Springs Ranch, Inc. v. Smith, 137 Idaho 480, 484, 50 P.3d 975, 979 (2002) (quoting Anderson v. Whipple, 71 Idaho 112, 124, 227 P.2d 351, 358 (1951)). Specific performance is not available to enforce ambiguous or incomplete real estate agreements. White v. Rehn, 103 Idaho 1, 2, 644 P.2d 323, 324 (1982). Idaho Code § 9-503 requires transfers of real property to be in writing. An agreement for the sale of real property must not only be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged, but the writing must also contain such a description of the property agreed to be sold, either in terms or by reference, that it can be ascertained without resort to parol evidence. Parol evidence may be resorted to for the purpose of identifying the description contained in the writing, with its location upon the ground, but not for the purpose of ascertaining and locating the land about which the particular parties negotiated, and supplying a description thereof which may have been omitted from the writing. Id. at 3, 644 P.2d at 325 (quoting Allen v. Kitchen, 16 Idaho 133, 136, 100 P. 1052, 1055 (1909) (quoting Craig v. Zelian, 137 Cal. 105, 69 P. 853 (1902))). As a general rule, a written instrument purporting to convey real property must contain a sufficient description of the property. A description contained in a deed will be sufficient so long as quantity, identity or boundaries of property can be determined from the face of the instrument, or by reference to extrinsic evidence to which it refers. City of Kellogg v. Mission Mountain Interests Ltd., Co., 135 Idaho 239, 244, 16 P.3d 915, 920 (2000) (citations omitted). In City of Kellogg v. Mission Mountain Interests Ltd., Co., 135 Idaho 239, 244, 16 P.3d 915, 920 (2000), this Court concluded that the subject property was sufficiently described so it was possible for someone to identify exactly what property was being conveyed. (emphasis added). In Haney v. Molko, 123 Idaho 132, 136-37, 844 P.2d 1382, 1386-87 (Ct.App.1992) the Idaho Court of Appeals held that the property descriptions contained in the Certificate of Sale and IRS deed, referring to the tax parcel numbers, were sufficient to permit persons to identify the exact property being conveyed, albeit by reference to the records in the County Assessor's Office, those property descriptions were sufficient to convey good title to the property. (emphasis added). However the descriptions contained in the documents in City of Kellogg and Haney were much more descriptive than the ones in this case; references included township and ranges markings and in Haney, the tax parcel numbers were included. While it may be possible for someone to identify the property being conveyed by the Bartschis to Garner by referring to the descriptions in the tax notices which were referenced by Addendum A, one cannot tell exactly what property was being conveyed by the Bartschis merely by the descriptions contained in those referenced documents. One of the Bartschis' tax notices contains some survey remarks and lot listings; however, the other two notices only refer to Lot 1 and Lot 4, respectively. Additionally, there is not a copy of the Bear River County Plat in the record. The map included in the record contains no delineation of what the map is; it is not discernable whether it is a Bear Lake County plat map or not. The 500 acres mountain property and descriptions from the tax notices and the map referred to in Addendum A do not amount to a sufficient legal description. Further, the Addendum states that a survey was ordered. The record does not reflect that a survey was completed. The district court found that the reference to the ordering of a survey is ample evidence that the parties had yet to determine the exact legal boundaries of the property to be sold. This is on point with the issue of the survey referenced in Hilbert [ v. Hough, 132 Idaho 203, 969 P.2d 836 (Ct.App.1998)]. This Court agrees. As succinctly stated by the district court, in order to validate the agreement, the Court would be required to provide all property boundaries. This Court holds the property description in the Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement is insufficient; and therefore specific performance is not available. The district court's grant of summary judgment to Ms. Bartschi is affirmed.