Court Opinion

ID: 9460461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:50:47.616884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:37.449533
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Sylvester Madison, his wife, and son brought this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, and 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (Fair Housing Act of 1968), alleging that William H. Jeffers had unlawfully discriminated against them in refusing to sell land to them because they were black. The district court, sitting without a jury, heard the testimony of the witnesses ore terms, in open court, found that Jeffers had taken the land off the market for income tax reasons, not race, and that the plaintiffs had not communicated a willingness to purchase at a time when the property was for sale, and dismissed the action. The crucial issue on this appeal is whether these findings of fact are clearly erroneous and require reversal under FRCP 52(a). Because the record supports the findings of the district court, we affirm.
Jeffers bought a tract of land consisting of approximately 298 acres in 1940, and known as the Home Place. He also purchased a one-third undivided interest in a nearby tract of land in the same community known as the Jeffers Place, which he owned with his father-in-law and one Brunson. Both the Home Place and the Jeffers Place are on TV Road. Jeffers began selling land from the Home Place in 1942, but the sales were sporadic until 1960, when he began selling an average of two tracts a year for the purpose of providing money to educate his five children. The years 1964 and 1971, in each of which Jeffers sold three lots, were the only years in which he had conveyed more than two lots from the Home Place.1 Jeffers and the other co-owners also sold lots and tracts from the Jeffers Place, through Brunson as the agent, and also, in at least one instance, through Martin Real Estate Company. Jeffers had limited his sales from the Home Place each year because he had been advised, albeit erroneously, that if he sold more than five parcels a year, he would lose his right to capital gains tax status on the sales.2 He also had an average yearly income from sources other than land sales of only $4,000, and he testified that, in addition to his capital gains status, he wanted to keep his income taxes to a minimum.
Jeffers, at the request of a niece’s husband who worked for Martin Real Estate Company (Martin Co.), allowed twelve lots from the Home Place to be listed for sale with the Martin Company during 1970. Thereafter, a FOR SALE sign was placed on this property listing Martin Company as the agent, and Martin Company, from time to time, ran advertisements for sale of the property in the Florence newspaper. These advertisements were run at Martin Company’s instance, and Jeffers was not consulted prior to their publication. He was not aware the advertisements were inadvertently continued in the paper after the listing contract expired July 31, 1971.
During the summer of 1971, Madison noticed the FOR SALE signs on the property and the newspaper advertisements concerning the property. On August 13, 1971, Madison contacted L. A. Tallón, an employee of Martin Company, *116who thereafter took Mr. and Mrs. Madison to look at the property. The Madi-sons expressed interest in two different lots belonging to Jeffers, but they were also interested in other land in the vicinity. Tallón was not sure what the Madi-sons wanted to buy, as they had also expressed interest in some lots in the area that were commercial property. Tallón did advise the Madisons that they should make a deposit if they wanted to buy, but the Madisons said they wanted to investigate the matter further, and did not make a deposit. After the Madisons left, Tallón called Jeffers to advise him of the prospective buyers, and Jeffers immediately told Tallón that he could not sell any more land because of tax reasons. Tallón did not advise Jeffers at that time that the Madisons were black, nor did Jeffers know it.
Madison did make subsequent inquiries about other available property for sale in the area; he also apparently made inquiries concerning a title check on Jeffers’ land he had been shown.
On August 16, 1971, three days after their initial visit to the land with Tallón, Madison attempted to call Jeffers, who was not at home; Madison left word for Jeffers to return his call. Jeffers did return the call on the same day, and talked to Mrs. Madison. Mrs. Madison apparently asked Jeffers if he owned property adjacent to his lots with the FOR SALE sign on them, and he replied that he did not. The conversation, taken as a whole, certainly indicates that the Madisons had not specifically narrowed their search for property to lots owned by Jeffers, and Mrs. Madison testified that she was trying to find out who owned other property in the area of the Home Place. Jeffers did not tell Mrs. Madison that his property was not for sale at this time, and she did not question him as to the specific property that he owned.
The Madisons did not pursue the matter any further with either Martin Company or Jeffers until August 20, 1971. On that date, Madison told Tallón that they would buy Jeffers’ land, and Tallón told Madison that Jeffers refused to sell for tax reasons. Tallón then went to see Jeffers personally. Jeffers reiterated to Tallón his refusal to sell, and Tallón informed Jeffers that the prospects were colored people; Jeffers responded that he was not prejudiced, and repeated that he would not sell “any more of it on account of tax purposes.” 3
The following day, August 21, 1971, Madison called Jeffers and asked if the reason he would not sell was because Madison was black. Jeffers responded that it was not, and again reiterated the tax reason for not selling.
The Madisons obviously concluded that Jeffers was not sincere in his refusal to sell for tax reasons, and they filed a complaint with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on December 30, 1971, alleging that Jeffers refused to sell them land because they were black. They did not communicate with Jeffers in 1972, after his new tax year began, to see if he would then sell to them.
The district court concluded that there was no proof of Jeffers’ failure to sell because of the Madisons’ race, color, religion or national origin, and found that Jeffers in fact refused to sell because of legitimate tax reasons. The record clearly shows that Jeffers consistently stated he would not sell for tax reasons, both before and after he discovered that the prospective purchasers were black. There was little or no evidence to indicate racial bias, other than the Madisons’ belief that this was the reason. The record also supports the finding of the district court that the Madisons never indicated to Jeffers or *117his real estate agent a willingness to purchase the property during the time it was available for sale. The civil rights statutes as interpreted make clear that one who sells or leases real estate “ [has] a right to refuse approval on any honest basis unrelated to the race of the prospective purchaser. . . . ” Pughs-ley v. 3750 Lake Shore Drive Cooperative Building, 463 F.2d 1055, 1056 (7th Cir. 1972). See also Fred v. Kokinokos, 347 F.Supp. 942, 944 (E.D.N.Y.1972); Bush v. Kaim, 297 F.Supp. 151, 162 (N. D.Ohio 1969). Since there is substantial evidence supporting the district court’s findings, we are unable to say that they are clearly erroneous.
Parenthetically, we point out that since the Madisons allege they seriously doubted Jeffers’ sincerity, their case would be immeasurably stronger had they waited only two days, until after January 1, 1972, and sought to buy the land in question during a new tax year instead of filing the complaint with HUD on December 30, 1971. We also note that two tracts from the Jeffers Place were sold by Jeffers and his associates some time prior to this dispute to black families who now live on the tracts.
The other assignment of error is likewise without merit. Evidence of statements made during settlement negotiations sponsored by HUD is specifically made inadmissible by the statute, 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a).
The judgment of the district court is accordingly
Affirmed.

. In 1971, there were three transfers from the Home Place, but one of them had been contracted for in 1970, a year in which no other sales were made from the Home Place. One of the 1971 conveyances was an exchange of property. In 1971, three parcels were sold from the Jeffers Place.

. Jeffers’ testimony is unclear as to whether he thought the five sales were from each tract, or from the Home Place and Jeffers tract combined. At any rate, the combined sales from both tracts never exceeded five in any one year, unless the sale contracted for in 1970 is counted in the year 1971. He never discussed his income tax with an attorney or accountant, rather relying on Brunson, a real estate agent.

. Jeffers’ recollection is that he talked to Mrs. Madison on the telephone after Tallón came to see him. The time sequence followed for convenience here is that’ expressed by the Madisons. In all events, Jeffers did not know the Madisons were black until advised in his second conversation with Tallón, and he had refused to sell the property when he first talked to Tallón, before he knew their race.