Court Opinion

ID: 9673759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:17:54.615877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:23.951851
License: Public Domain

FOSHEIM, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Mrs. Vodicka held a real estate salesman’s license. Nevertheless, both Mr. and Mrs. Vodicka claimed they did not read the merchantable title provisions of'either the listing agreement or the sale contract. Defendants contend this parol evidence was justified because the tax deed notation and the merchantable title provision of the agency agreement posed an ambiguity which needed explanation. In Christiansen v. Strand, 1965, 81 S.D. 187, 132 N.W.2d 386, we did hold that when a writing is uncertain or ambiguous, oral evidence is admissible to explain the instrument, and in Eggers v. Eggers, 1961, 79 S.D. 233, 110 N.W.2d 339, we said that oral negotiations or agreements which preceded or accompanied the execution of a written contract may be employed to explain its uncertain expressions. In both Christiansen and Eggers, we qualified the ambiguity rule by holding that parol evidence cannot be used to add to, nor detract from, the writing or to contradict or nullify its express terms.
In Eggers, we said, “In our opinion to so employ the offered proof would be to reform rather than to interpret and explain the language of the instrument. So used the offered proof would contradict the express words of the instrument rendering it payable on demand.” 79 S.D. at 238, 110 N.W.2d at 342.
SDCL 53-8-5 provides:
“The execution of a contract in writing, whether the law requires it to be written or not, supersedes all the oral negotiations or stipulations concerning its matter which preceded or accompanied the execution of the instrument.”
We have consistently held that this statute reflects the great weight of authority and should be well understood and uniformly *607adhered to. It is substantive law and not a rule of evidence. Eggers v. Eggers, supra; Moncur v. Jones, 1948, 72 S.D. 202, 31 N.W.2d 759; Baker v. Jewell, 1959, 77 S.D. 573, 96 N.W.2d 299. In Kindley v. Williams, 1956, 76 S.D. 225, 76 N.W.2d 227, Judge Rudolph quotes from Farmers’ Elevator Co. v. Swier, 1926, 50 S.D. 436, 210 N.W. 671, regarding this statute:
“ * * where a contract which has been reduced to writing and executed by the parties is complete, clear, and unambiguous in its terms and contains mutual contractual covenants, or where the consideration consists of a specific and direct promise to do or not to do certain things, this part of the contract, in the absence of fraud, mistake, or accident, cannot be changed or modified by parol or extrinsic evidence, nor can new terms be added to the contract, nor to the contractual consideration therein expressed, nor, where all these facts exist, may a party to a contract show that he was induced to sign the contract by'the making of a prior or contemporaneous oral agreement, where such showing would be tantamount to adding to or subtracting from the contractual consideration expressed in the written contract.’ ” 76 S.D. at 228, 76 N.W.2d at 229-230.
It is presumed that the written agreement expresses the final intention of the parties upon the subject matter of the contract, Stoefen v. Brooks, 1939, 66 S.D. 587, 287 N.W. 330; Midway Farmers’ Warehouse Co. v. Foley, 1927, 51 S.D. 288, 213 N.W. 507; Janssen v. Tusha, 1939, 66 S.D. 604, 287 N.W. 501. “To permit a party, when sued on a written contract, to admit that he signed it but to deny that it expresses the agreement he made or to allow him to admit that he signed it but did riot read it or know its stipulations would absolutely destroy the value of all contracts.” 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts, § 149, at p. 498.
Regarding the claimed ambiguity, if a vendor has an interest in the land to be conveyed, it is not necessary that he be able to perform at the time the contract is made. It is sufficient if he is able to perform when the vendee has a right to call upon him for a performance, Martinson v. Regan, 1909, 18 N.D. 467, 123 N.W. 285; Golden Valley Land & Cattle Co. v. Johnstone, 1913, *60825 N.D. 148, 141 N.W. 76; Depositors Trust Co. v. Bruneau, 1949, 144 Me. 142, 66 A.2d 86; Hepburn & Dundas’s Heirs v. Dunlop & Co., 1 Wheat 179, 14 U.S. 179, 4 L.Ed. 65; Clark v. Ingle, 1954, 58 N.M. 136, 266 P.2d 672; Kendall v. Hastings, 1948, 200 Okl. 643, 198 P.2d 998; Woodard v. Allen, 1953, 1 Utah 2d 220, 265 P.2d 398; 77 Am.Jur.2d, Vendor and Purchaser, § 234. According to the agency contract, defendants would have sixteen (16) years ^after the sale to provide a merchantable title. Cash and prepayments were expressly forbidden. Payment and delivery of title were mutual dependent covenants. Rapp v. Petrik, 1933, 61 S.D. 426, 249 N.W. 736. Mr. and Mrs. Vodicka would also have a reasonable time to remedy any defects in the title pointed out by the purchaser’s attorney, Vangsness v. Bovill, 1931, 58 S.D. 228, 235 N.W. 601, 77 Am.Jur.2d, Vendor and Purchaser, § 234. In the interim, several circumstances or combination of circumstances could operate to remedy any title deficiencies, such as the pending or a future quiet title action; the unbroken chain of title statute, SDCL 43-30-2, which expressly covers title by tax deed; adverse possession, SDCL 15-3-1 et seq.; or acquisition of any outstanding adverse interests.
It follows that the tax deed notation on the listing contract was not incompatible with the covenant to convey a merchantable title in the future and no ambiguity existed.
I would reverse.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice DUNN joins in this dissent.