Court Opinion

ID: 9575320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:12:58.865175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:53.041438
License: Public Domain

CARTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. Parties who shape a transaction in a particular manner in order to produce favorable tax consequences should correspondingly be saddled with any unfavorable consequences which flow from casting the transaction in that form.
The contract res is divided into two portions. The sellers sold the residence portion for a separate consideration. The buyers have paid the consideration allocated to the residence portion in the contract. Consequently, in the absence of contrary provisions in the agreement, they should be declared to be the equitable owners thereof free of any lien or right of forfeiture attributable to the consideration allocated to the other property. I cannot interpret the contract as rescuing the sellers from that result.
The provision calling for a single deed merely describes the manner in which the transaction will be handled if the buyers ultimately pay for both portions of the contract res. This does not suggest that one of the parcels, if fully paid for, remains as security for payment of amounts owed on the other parcel. The rights of the parties should be determined by a court of equity in accordance with the property interests granted by the contract rather than the procedures provided to implement those interests. Notwithstanding the provision for a single deed, a court of equity may order a separate conveyance to the buyers of that portion of the res for which they have made full payment.
There is no merit in the sellers’ claim that lack of a precise description prevents setting off the residence property to the buyers. The separately sold tracts are sufficiently capable of identification that a court of equity can set off the residence property from the remainder.
NEUMAN, J., joins this dissent.