Court Opinion

ID: 9629652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:46:47.416012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:22.277869
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
WILNER, J.
I concur in the judgment. I do not agree with the Court’s conclusion, apparently one of law, that the condition did not fail until the property was sold, especially as the Court does not indicate whether, by “sold,” it means contracted for sale or actually conveyed. The condition was that John and Lisa move into Rabbitt Hill, and there was evidence from which the jury, or the judge, could have found that the Ver Bryckes knew, or had good reason to know, before the property was “sold” that John and Lisa were not, in fact, going to move into it. The focus should be on when that knowledge existed, not *704when it became legally or even practically impossible for the condition to be met.
I agree with the Court’s ultimate judgment because the evidence would support a finding that such knowledge did not exist until a point within three years of the filing of the suit— i.e., a time after March 23, 1996. It may have come when John and Lisa separated in 1997, or when divorce proceedings began in January, 1998. It may have been manifest when the Ver Bryckes decided to record the deed of trust in July, 1998, and it certainly would have existed when John and Lisa contracted to sell the property in November, 1999. Whether the Ver Bryckes knew or had reason to know prior to March 23,1996 that the condition would not be met was in substantial dispute. As the jury did not clearly answer that question because of the ambiguous wording of Question 3C, the judge had to make that call, and I would not disturb the judge’s decision.