Court Opinion

ID: 9721178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:50:21.537951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:23.780067
License: Public Domain

COMBS, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. The trial court correctly characterized this issue by holding that all the contracts for purchasing land, for construction of a residence, and for the above-ground pool have a direct bearing on the nature of the real estate title acquired by the Osburgs. Therefore, the deed describing and restricting that title is the only relevant document governing this controversy. All other contracts or agreements truly merged into their deed of title and were not — as the majority opinion suggests — merely collateral agreements standing separate and apart from the deed.
Since the trial court correctly applied the merger doctrine to the contract for the pool, it was also correct in refusing to apply the arbitration clause contained in the contract that had been subsumed into the deed. This matter should proceed to litigation as to the deed rather than being subject to the arbitration clause of the contract.