Estate of Osborn Ex Rel. Osborn v. Kemp
991 A.2d 1153, 2010 WL 1112373, 2010 Del. LEXIS 135 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court will grant specific performance of a real estate contract when a party proves by clear and convincing evidence that: 1) a valid and definite contract exists, 2) the party is ready, willing, and able to perform, and 3) the balance of equities tips in their favor.
Facts:
- In 1984, Michael Kemp began leasing an apartment in a beach house owned by Lucille Osborn.
- On April 16, 1985, Kemp drafted a holographic document, which both he and Osborn signed and had notarized.
- The document stated, "I, Michael Kemp agree to pay Lucille Menicucci $275.00 per month plus utilities for twenty years for the purchase of property at 292 S. Delaware and Bay Ave. Slaughter Beach for $50,000."
- For the next 20 years, Kemp lived in the house, made monthly payments, and invested approximately $11,000 in improvements.
- During this period, Osborn issued receipts for the payments that referred to them as "rent" and listed them as such on her tax returns.
- The 20-year payment period ended in April 2005, but Kemp mistakenly continued paying for a few more months.
- In 2006, Osborn became incapacitated due to dementia, and her niece, Sharon Gillespie, began managing her affairs under a power of attorney.
- Gillespie, unaware of the 1985 document, found that Kemp had stopped making payments and demanded what she believed to be past-due rent.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharon Gillespie, on behalf of Lucille Osborn, filed suit against Michael Kemp in the Delaware Court of Chancery, seeking an injunction, declaratory judgment, and restitution.
- Kemp filed a counterclaim for specific performance of the 1985 agreement.
- The Court of Chancery (the trial court) found in favor of Kemp and issued an order of specific performance.
- Gillespie, as co-executrix of Osborn’s estate, appealed the trial court's decision to the Delaware Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a handwritten real estate sales contract justify the equitable remedy of specific performance where the parties dispute the meaning of the price term and the seller's estate argues the balance of equities weighs against enforcement?
Opinions:
Majority - Steele, Chief Justice
Yes, a handwritten real estate sales contract justifies specific performance even with a disputed price term if the court finds the contract's terms to be unambiguous and the equities favor enforcement. The court analyzed the request for specific performance using a three-part test. First, it held that a valid, unambiguous contract existed. Adhering to the objective theory of contract interpretation, the court found the only reasonable reading of the price term was an installment agreement followed by a final $50,000 payment to purchase the property; the estate's alternative interpretation would render the '$50,000' term meaningless and lead to an absurd result. Second, the court determined Kemp was ready, willing, and able to perform, as he could obtain financing within a reasonable time by using the property as collateral. Third, the court concluded that the balance of equities tipped in Kemp's favor because real property is unique, he had invested in the home, and ousting him from his residence of over 20 years would be a greater harm than any financial loss to the estate from property appreciation.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Delaware's adherence to the objective theory of contract interpretation, emphasizing that courts will enforce the plain meaning of a contract's terms to avoid absurd results, even for informally drafted agreements. It establishes a strong precedent for granting specific performance in long-term real estate contracts where the buyer has demonstrated significant reliance, such as long-term residency and making improvements. The case serves as a caution that a mere increase in property value over time is generally insufficient grounds to deny specific performance, as courts will prioritize the unique nature of real property and the hardship of displacement on a long-term occupant when balancing the equities.
