Kofmehl v. Baseline Lake, LLC

Kofmehl v. Baseline Lake, LLC

Because Washington law precludes restitution to a buyer under an unenforceable land sale contract unless the seller repudiated or was not ready, willing, and able to perform, the buyer bore the burden to prove repudiation and the meaning of the Agreement; genuine issues of material fact exist as to contract interpretation, inclusion of the 3.93 acres, sewer accessibility, and which party breached, so summary judgment for restitution was improper and the Court of Appeals was correctly affirmed and the matter remanded.

Citation
Kofmehl v. Baseline Lake, LLC
Parties
Petitioner: Patrick H. Kofmehl; Respondent: Baseline Lake, LLC
Court
Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
United States
Judgment Date
20 June 2013
Case Number
87395-0
Procedural Posture
Real Estate Contract Dispute (land Sale) / Supreme Court Review of Summary Judgment; Case Remanded for Further Proceedings
Outcome
Affirmed Court of Appeals; reversed trial court's summary judgment awarding restitution and attorney fees; remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion
Legal Topics
Statute of Frauds, Specific Performance, Restitution, Earnest Money, Contract Interpretation, Summary Judgment
Source Language
English
Contracts Real Property Equity Civil Procedure Statute of Frauds Specific Performance Restitution Earnest Money +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick H. Kofmehl

Petitioner

Baseline Lake, LLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Real Estate Contract Dispute (land Sale) / Supreme Court Review of Summary Judgment; Case Remanded for Further Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a buyer can recover earnest money when a land sale contract is unenforceable under the statute of frauds
  2. 2 Whether the vendor was ready, willing, and able to perform or repudiated the agreement
  3. 3 Which party bears the burden to prove repudiation or failure to perform

Ratio Decidendi

Because Washington law precludes restitution to a buyer under an unenforceable land sale contract unless the seller repudiated or was not ready, willing, and able to perform, the buyer bore the burden to prove repudiation and the meaning of the Agreement; genuine issues of material fact exist as to contract interpretation, inclusion of the 3.93 acres, sewer accessibility, and which party breached, so summary judgment for restitution was improper and the Court of Appeals was correctly affirmed and the matter remanded.

Court Disposition

Affirmed Court of Appeals; reversed trial court's summary judgment awarding restitution and attorney fees; remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion

Orders

  • Affirmed Court of Appeals decision reversing trial court's grant of restitution and attorney fees
  • Reversed trial court's summary judgment awarding plaintiff restitution