Skelly Oil Company v. Ashmore
365 S.W.2d 582, 1963 Mo. LEXIS 804 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a building on property under an executory contract for sale is destroyed without fault of either party, the purchaser is entitled to specific performance of the contract with an abatement of the purchase price equal to the insurance proceeds received by the vendor for the loss.
Facts:
- Tom and Madelyn Ashmore owned a commercial lot with a concrete block building operated as a grocery store, which was leased to a third party.
- Skelly Oil Company entered into an option contract to purchase the property for $20,000, which specifically included the land 'together with the buildings, driveways, and all construction and equipment thereon.'
- On March 7, 1958, Skelly Oil exercised its option and the Ashmores agreed, creating a binding contract for sale.
- The parties scheduled the closing for April 16, 1958.
- On April 7, 1958, nine days before the scheduled closing, the building on the property was destroyed by fire through no fault of either party.
- The Ashmores maintained a fire insurance policy on the building and fixtures, and their insurer ultimately paid them $10,000 for the destruction of the building.
- At a meeting to close the sale, Skelly Oil demanded that the $10,000 insurance proceeds be credited against the $20,000 purchase price.
- The Ashmores refused to credit the insurance proceeds and subsequently notified Skelly Oil that they were rescinding the contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Skelly Oil Company sued Tom and Madelyn Ashmore in the Newton County trial court for specific performance and abatement of the purchase price.
- The case was transferred to the Jasper County trial court on a change of venue.
- The trial court found for Skelly Oil Company, ordering specific performance and applying the $10,000 insurance proceeds to the purchase price.
- The Ashmores, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Missouri Supreme Court, Division Two.
- Due to a dissent in the divisional opinion, the case was transferred to be heard by the Missouri Supreme Court en Banc.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
When a building on property under a contract for sale is destroyed by fire before the closing date, is the purchaser entitled to specific performance of the contract with an abatement of the purchase price equal to the insurance proceeds received by the vendor?
Opinions:
Majority - Hyde, Judge
Yes. When property under a contract of sale is partially destroyed, the purchaser may obtain specific performance with an abatement of the purchase price equal to the vendor's insurance proceeds. The court rejected the traditional rule of equitable conversion, which places the risk of loss on the purchaser from the moment the contract is signed. Instead, it adopted the 'Massachusetts rule,' which holds that if a building constituting a material part of the contract is destroyed, the contract is no longer binding. However, the court found the core issue here was not rescission but the purchaser's right to enforce the contract. Granting specific performance while substituting the insurance proceeds for the destroyed building is equitable because the vendors receive the full $20,000 purchase price they bargained for, while the purchaser receives the value of the property for which it contracted (the land plus the value of the building, represented by the insurance). This prevents the vendors from being unjustly enriched and ensures the purchaser is not forced to pay the full price for a diminished property.
Dissenting - Storckman, Judge
No. The purchaser is not entitled to an abatement of the purchase price equal to the vendor's insurance proceeds. The dissent argued that awarding the insurance money to Skelly Oil constitutes a windfall, as Skelly intended to demolish the building to construct a service station, meaning the building had no value to them. The insurance policy was a personal contract between the Ashmores and their insurer, and Skelly had no equitable claim to its proceeds. The majority's decision, while claiming to adopt the 'Massachusetts rule,' misapplies it by simply awarding the insurance proceeds instead of remanding to determine the purchaser's actual damages, if any. This outcome effectively applies the rejected doctrine of equitable conversion in disguise, allowing Skelly to acquire a $20,000 property for only $10,000.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant departure from the traditional doctrine of equitable conversion, under which the risk of loss passes to the buyer upon signing the sale contract. By adopting the 'Massachusetts rule' in principle, the court shifted the focus toward a more flexible, equitable analysis. However, the court's specific holding—that the buyer is entitled to the seller's insurance proceeds—creates a constructive trust over the funds for the buyer's benefit. This precedent significantly impacts real estate transactions by altering the default allocation of risk and creating an equitable link between the seller's insurance policy and the buyer's interest, even where none is stated in the contract.
