Opinion ID: 1387897
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: rescission damages

Text: The judge allowed First Equity to submit evidence of expenses from the time of the mortgage assumption forward. United contends that this was error, and that only evidence of expenses connected with the auction should have been submitted to the jury. We disagree. When a party elects and is granted rescission as a remedy, he is entitled to be returned to status quo ante. Kent Homes, Inc. v. Frankel , 128 A. (2d) 444, 446 (D.C. App. 1957). Rescission entitles the party to a return of the consideration paid as well as any additional sums necessary to restore him to the positions occupied prior to the making of the contract. Bank of Johnston v. Jones , 141 S.C. 98, 115-116, 139 S.E. 190, 196 (1927); Baeza v. Robert E. Lee Chrysler, Plymouth , 279 S.C. 468, 472-473, 309 S.E. (2d) 763, 766 (Ct. App. 1983); Jennings v. Lee , 461 P. (2d) 161, 167 (Ariz. 1969). In order to be placed in status quo ante, First Equity was entitled to recover costs incurred from the entry into the contract forward. The award of $170,638.76 in rescission damages was supported by the evidence of record. We see no error in allowing the submission to the jury of all costs incurred in reliance on both the release provisions as well as the subsequent actions and assurances of United that it would comply with the provisions. We therefore affirm the rescission damages award.