Court Opinion

ID: 9797284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:17:40.641287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:38.300268
License: Public Domain

THORNE, Judge
(concurring in result):
13 I concur in the result of the majority opinion, but I believe that the majority's analysis goes much further than is necessary to resolve this case. Under its plain language, the Stipulation expired when six months elapsed without a sale of the property or the seeking of an extension by one of the parties. Upon the expiration of the six months, the Stipulation became "void ab ini-tio, of no foree or effect," and there was nothing left for the district court to extend or modify. Accordingly, I -would not reach the issues of whether the district court's extension and modifications would have been proper had an extension been timely sought and *888would instead reverse the district court's order solely on the basis that the Stipulation had expired.
1 14 The Stipulation provided for a stay of the prosecution of Plaintiff's action for six months while the parties attempted to sell the property in accordance with the Stipulation's terms. Paragraph 7 of the Stipulation, captioned "Failure to Sell the Subject Property," addressed the expiration and possible extension of the Stipulation:
If escrow is not opened for the sale of the Subject Property within six (6) months of the date of the Court's order on this Stipulation in an amount of not less than $9.50 per square foot ..., then the stay of the Action shall be lifted and prosecution of this matter shall proceed.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the sale period may be extended for an additional six (6) months, by Court order, ... or by stipulation of the parties. If the sale of the Subject Property is not concluded within six (6) months or a year as the case may be, then this Stipulation and the Agreement to Sell Real Property shall be void ab initio, of no force or effect, [and] the parties shall be restored to their positions status quo ante....
The Stipulation further states that "[tlime is of the essence in every obligation or any duty of the parties." Cf. Century 21 All W. Real Estate & Inv. v. Webb, 645 P.2d 52, 55 n. 1 (Utah 1982) ("Where the contract states that time is of the essence, cases hold that both parties are discharged from their contract obligations if neither makes tender by the agreed cloging date.").
15 This language contemplates the need to obtain, or at the very least seek, an extension prior to the expiration of the initial six-month sales period. The consequences of a failure to do so are equally clear: "If the sale of the Subject Property is not concluded within six (6) months ..., then this Stipulation and the Agreement to Sell Real Property shall be void ab initio. ..." Thus, when the six-month period expired without a sale or extension, the Stipulation simply ceased to exist and there remained no extension provisions for the district court to apply.
[ 16 Defendants gave up valuable consideration-the rights to not sell their real property and to defend Plaintiffs claims on the merits-to enter the Stipulation, but only for a limited time and on limited terms. As Plaintiff failed to seek an extension in accordance with those terms, the Stipulation expired when the Property failed to sell within six months. Upon the expiration of the Stipulation, Defendants were entitled to have the district court respect the terms of the parties' bargain, lift the stay, and continue the proceedings. Cf. First of Denver Mortgage Investors v. C.N. Zundel & Assocs., 600 P.2d 521, 527 (Utah 1979) ("Ordinarily, courts are bound by stipulations between parties."). Accordingly, I would reverse the district court's order solely on this basis, without consideration of the district court's authority to extend or modify the Stipulation if such had been timely sought.