Opinion ID: 2629946
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Torrington House Purchase

Text: [¶ 38] The district court found that Broemmel agreed to finance Meima's purchase of the Torrington house in late April 2001, but the parties had not agreed to terms (method, interest, repayment, etc . . .) and proceeded to discuss the terms of the loan throughout the summer. In essence, in April, 2001, the parties made an agreement to agree and did not mutually assent to sufficiently specific terms at that time. By June 11, 2001, the parties had still not worked out all the conditions on the house purchase and Meima's testimony that a complete agreement existed before June 11, 2001, and that Broemmel then backed out at the last minute to extract additional profit, was not credible or persuasive. Meima created his financial condition and wanted to hide assets, and Broemmel did not intend to provide financing until sufficient terms of repayment, interest and collateral were agreed upon; Broemmel's reluctance was not wrongful. [¶ 39] Instead, the parties agreed to terms sometime after June 11, 2001, and the terms were written into the July 24, 2001, lease/purchase agreement. Meima did not object to any of the contract terms, complied with the terms by paying rent and transferring the rifles to Broemmel, and had assets and failed to explain why he [did not] utilize those assets to support his purchase of the Torrington house. Accordingly, Broemmel was not coercive and Meima's testimony to the contrary was not persuasive. The district court found that no additional consideration was provided for the July 25, 2001, promissory note, the addendum to that promissory note, or the subsequent mortgage. [¶ 40] The district court concluded that Meima paid rent to Broemmel from August 2001 to March 2002, but did not pay rent thereafter, nor did Meima pay the property taxes or the insurance for the Torrington house. Due to Meima's default, the district court found that Meima owed $60,500.00 in rent through April 2004, $4,195.73 in property taxes, and $2,762.00 for property insurance, and that Broemmel's $10,000.00 profit had previously been satisfied from the Baltic properties sale proceeds consistent with the lease/purchase agreement. The district court declared that Broemmel held title to the Torrington house as an individual, issued an order of ejectment, and terminated the lease/purchase agreement.