Court Opinion

ID: 9719717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:01:25.643817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:09.456446
License: Public Domain

BURKE, J., dissenting: The contract is for the sale of real estate. It is not a contract to construct a building. The contract does not state that the premises possess or will possess a driveway. There is no reference in the contract to the state of completion in the building and there is no undertaking by defendant to do any additional work. As a general rule a deed made in full execution of a contract of sale of land merges the provisions of the contract therein, including all prior negotiations and agreements leading up to the execution of the deed, but the rule is subject to exceptions, and independent and collateral agreements are not merged. 26 CJS, Deeds, p 82. Trapp v. Gordon, 366 Ill 102, 7 NE2d 869; Stromsen v. Stromsen, 397 Ill 260, 263, 73 NE2d 272. If there are provisions in the contract which delivery of the deed does not fulfill, the contract is not merged in the deed as to such provisions and remains open for the performance of such terms. Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. Wabash-Randolph Corp., 384 Ill 78, 87, 51 NE2d 132. The transaction was closed on April 21, 1955. Neither the deed to the Fischers nor the deed from them to plaintiffs contains any undertaking by defendant to complete any work upon the premises. There are no unfulfilled provisions in the contract. The terms of the contract were fulfilled by delivery of the deed. This position is further supported by an exhibit introduced by plaintiffs, a letter from defendant, by its attorney, issued at the closing, stating what defendant undertakes to do after the closing, namely, (1) file deeds and mail them to attorney for plaintiff; (2) cause a Torrens certificate to issue in the names of plaintiffs subject to 1954 general taxes and a described easement; and (3) pay 1954 general taxes. This exhibit refutes the argument presented by plaintiffs. In support of its contention that the consideration in the written instrument can be explained, varied and contradicted by parol proof, plaintiffs cite three cases, none of which deals with the question of merger in a situation where a real estate sales contract has been reduced to writing and contains within itself the entire contract of the parties. One of these cases deals with an action on a life insurance policy, one with a breach of contract between two persons who had agreed to develop land in which the court construed the meaning of the language in the contract, and one where a written contract for the sale of real estate recited that a residence was being erected thereon and which provided that when the house passed final F H A inspection it was to be accepted by the purchaser. Defendant did not comply with certain F H A requirements. The court admitted into evidence the written contract and the written F H A commitments and construed these documents together as imposing a duty upon the defendant which endured beyond the delivery of the deed. None of these cases is helpful to plaintiffs’ case. In the case at bar there is no writing ancillary to the contract which in any way imposed a duty upon the defendant other than issuing a deed. In Kerr v. Parsons, 83 Ohio App 204, 82 NE2d 303, the court said (305): “Ordinarily, there is no implied warranty as to the condition of real estate sold or leased, and oral evidence of a warranty would not be admissible to add to a deed or release. Thompson on Real Property, Perm Ed Vol 4, Sections 1545, 1546. An express warranty, to be enforceable, would be required to be in writing to satisfy the statute of frauds.” Plaintiffs and the majority opinion rely strongly on the case of Miller v. Cannon Hill Estates, Ltd., (1931) 2 Kings Bench 113. This and other cases cited by the plaintiffs do not support their position under the factual situation in the instance case. The cases deal with situations in which a plaintiff expressly and in writing contracted with a defendant for the construction of a building, or to perform work upon a building. These cases are inapplicable here. Defendant was not to construct a building or to perform work for the plaintiffs. The testimony of Peter Week, one of the plaintiffs, that the house was not built for his daughter nor for him, negates plaintiffs’ theory of implied warranty. I think that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment against plaintiffs.