ACME Investment v. Southwest Tracor ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                                   ___________
    No. 96-1286
    ___________
    Acme Investment, Inc., a              *
    Nebraska corporation,                 *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    *   Appeal from the United States
    v.                               *   District Court for the
    *   District of Nebraska.
    Southwest Tracor, Inc., a             *
    Texas corporation,                    *
    *
    Appellant.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted:   November 12, 1996
    Filed:   January 28, 1997
    ___________
    Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    BEAM, Circuit Judge.
    Southwest Tracor, Inc. (Southwest) appeals the district court's1
    judgment in favor of Acme Investment, Inc. (Acme) in this diversity action
    for specific performance of a real estate purchase agreement.    We affirm.
    I.   BACKGROUND
    This lawsuit concerns a Best Western hotel located near the Lincoln,
    Nebraska, airport.     In May of 1986 appellant Southwest, which then owned
    the hotel, entered into a lease with Airport Inn, Inc.          Airport Inn
    operated the hotel under the lease for several
    1
    The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge
    for the District of Nebraska.
    years, but in 1992 various disputes arose between Southwest and Airport
    Inn.   As a result of these disputes, Southwest attempted to terminate the
    lease.   Claiming that Southwest's termination was invalid under the lease,
    Airport Inn refused to vacate the property.          Southwest then brought an
    ejectment action in Nebraska court.      Shortly thereafter, Airport Inn filed
    for bankruptcy.
    Shortly   before   Southwest's   ejectment   action   reached   trial,   the
    parties reached a settlement.      Under the settlement, Southwest sold the
    hotel to appellee Acme, another corporation owned by Airport Inn's parent
    company, for $2.65 million.      The parties closed on October 26, 1993, and
    Acme acquired ownership.
    As part of the settlement, the parties agreed that Southwest would
    retain an option to repurchase the hotel from Acme.      The purchase agreement
    stated that:
    Any such repurchase shall be for a price of $2,450,000.00 cash
    at closing. The option must be exercised by written notice
    from [Southwest] to [Acme] within 30 days before the expiration
    of the one-year option term.
    The option period was to end one year from the closing of Acme's purchase
    of the hotel from Southwest, that is, October 26, 1994.          An amendment to
    the settlement's purchase agreement required that should Southwest exercise
    its option to repurchase the hotel, it had to set a date for closing
    between November 1, 1994, and January 31, 1995.
    On October 14, during the final thirty days of the one-year option
    period, Southwest notified Acme that it was exercising its option.               By
    notice to Acme on October 19, Southwest chose December 15, 1994, as the
    target date for closing.       Acme, however, refused to honor the option,
    claiming that the contract required exercise of the option before the last
    30 days of the option year and that the purported exercise was therefore
    untimely.   Acme offered
    -2-
    instead to proceed to closing on December 15, placing the purchase price
    and title in escrow pending judicial resolution of the dispute.
    Southwest did not accept Acme's escrow proposal, and Acme filed a
    declaratory judgment action in federal district court in Nebraska, seeking
    a declaration that Southwest's option had lapsed.        Southwest filed an
    action for specific performance in federal court in Missouri.    The actions
    were consolidated and proceeded to a bench trial in Nebraska.   The district
    court found that Southwest's exercise of the option was timely, and Acme
    has not appealed that finding.     The district court also found, however,
    that Southwest was not ready, willing, and able to perform by tendering the
    $2.45 million purchase price, either at the time of the exercise of the
    option or at any time during the three-month window for closing the
    transaction.   Acme Inv., Inc. v. Southwest Tracor, Inc., 
    911 F. Supp. 1261
    ,
    1275 (D. Neb. 1995).    On this basis, the district court entered judgment
    for Acme.   Southwest appeals.
    II.   DISCUSSION
    The parties agree that Nebraska law applies to the substantive legal
    issues presented by this appeal.   Nebraska appellate courts review specific
    performance actions de novo in regard to both law and facts.     III Lounge,
    Inc. v. Gaines, 
    348 N.W.2d 903
    , 905 (Neb. 1984).    In our view, the Nebraska
    court's de novo standard is an issue of substantive, rather than procedural
    state law, comparable to the standard for reviewing the sufficiency of
    evidence to support a jury verdict.    See Burke v. Deere & Co., 
    6 F.3d 497
    ,
    511 (8th Cir. 1993) (in diversity actions, state law determines standard
    of review for sufficiency of the evidence).    We therefore apply state law
    and review the district court's judgment de novo.    Erie R.R. v. Thompkins,
    
    304 U.S. 64
    , 78 (1938).
    -3-
    Noting that Nebraska courts have often followed the Restatement
    (Second) of Contracts, the district court grounded its analysis on section
    238 of the Restatement.    Section 238 provides:
    Where all or part of the performances to be exchanged under an
    exchange of promises are due simultaneously, it is a condition
    of each party's duties to render such performance that the
    other party either render or, with manifested present ability
    to do so, offer performance of his part of the simultaneous
    exchange.
    Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 238 (1979).        The district court
    reasoned that in order to bind Acme, Southwest had a simultaneous duty of
    performance:    it had to either tender the purchase price or show that it
    was ready, willing, and able to tender at the time it exercised the option.
    The district court held that Southwest's failure to either tender or to
    manifest the ability to tender placed Southwest in breach of the contract,
    and thus this failure did "not trigger any duty on Acme's part to perform
    its end of the 
    deal." 911 F. Supp. at 1271
    .
    Southwest makes two main objections to the district court's analysis.
    First, it claims that the district court erred in ruling that Southwest had
    a duty to tender $2.45 million at the same time it exercised the option.
    Rather, the parties' contract specified that the repurchase would be
    consummated by "cash at closing."   According to Southwest, this meant that
    it had no duty to perform under the contract until closing.        Second,
    Southwest argues, any duty on its part to perform was discharged when Acme
    told Southwest it considered the option untimely exercised and would not
    honor it.      Therefore, Southwest argues, when Acme repudiated the deal
    Southwest had no further duty to seek financing for the purchase, and,
    accordingly, had no burden to show that it had the ability to pay at the
    time it exercised the option.
    -4-
    To a certain point, we agree with Southwest.       Under Nebraska law, an
    option holder has no duty to tender performance upon exercising the option
    unless the contract creating the option so provides.             III 
    Lounge, 348 N.W.2d at 906
    (citing J.R. Kemper, Annotation, Necessity for Payment or
    Tender of Purchase Money Within Option Period, 
    71 A.L.R. 3d 1201
    , 1205-06
    (1976)); Gleeson v. Frahm, 
    320 N.W.2d 95
    , 97 (Neb. 1982).         The Southwest-
    Acme contract provided that Southwest could repurchase the hotel upon its
    option "for a price of $2,450,000.00 cash at closing." (emphasis added).
    The parties agreed that Southwest could, upon exercising the option, set
    a closing date for any time between November 1, 1994, and January 31, 1995.
    The contract clearly did not require Southwest to perform its contractual
    obligation (that is, tender the purchase price) until closing.           Because its
    time of performance had not arisen when Acme repudiated the option,
    Southwest could not have breached.
    Furthermore,   Southwest    correctly     argues   that    Acme's     actions
    discharged it of any further duty to perform under the contract.                "[A]n
    unqualified   renunciation   of   an    executory   contract    before    time    for
    performance by one party excuses tender of performance by the other party
    at the time set for performance."      In re Estate of Michels, 
    389 N.W.2d 285
    ,
    289 (Neb. 1986) (citations omitted).      We disagree with Acme that its offer
    to   place title and the purchase price in escrow pending litigation
    satisfied its contractual duties.      Acme's unambiguous position that it did
    not consider Southwest's exercise of the option valid was clearly an
    "unqualified renunciation" of the contract.          Upon Acme's repudiation,
    Southwest was discharged of any duty of performance, and could sue
    immediately for Acme's breach.    Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 253.2
    2
    Section 253 provides:
    Effect of a Repudiation as a Breach and on Other Party's
    Duties
    (1) Where an obligor repudiates a duty before he                    has
    committed a breach by non-performance and before he                 has
    received all of the agreed exchange for it,                         his
    repudiation alone gives rise to a claim for damages                 for
    total breach.
    -5-
    This does not settle the issue, however, because the district court
    specifically found that Southwest would have been unable to perform not
    only at the time it exercised the option, but at all times thereafter
    during the three-month period for 
    closing. 911 F. Supp. at 1271
    .   Although
    the district court incorrectly characterized this as a breach by Southwest,
    such a finding necessarily precludes any remedy for Southwest.         "``The
    failure or inability or refusal to carry out the terms of the contract at
    the time when performance is due will ordinarily be grounds for refusing
    specific performance . . . .'"   Tedco Dev. Corp. v. Overland Hills, Inc.,
    
    266 N.W.2d 56
    , 60 (Neb. 1978) (quoting 71 Am.Jur.2d Specific Performance
    § 60, at 88 (1973)) (emphasis in original); see also Sofio v. Glissmann,
    
    57 N.W.2d 176
    , 183 (Neb. 1953).      Although the parties here vigorously
    debate how to properly apply the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, neither
    side addresses the most relevant provision.     Section 254(1) provides:
    A party's duty to pay damages for total breach by repudiation
    is discharged if it appears after the breach that there would
    have been a total failure by the injured party to perform his
    return promise.
    Comment (a) to section 254 states:
    Non-performance by injured party after repudiation. If the
    parties are to exchange performances under an exchange of
    promises, each party's duties to render performance are
    generally regarded as conditional on the other party's
    performance, or at least on his readiness
    (2)   Where performances are to be exchanged under an
    exchange of promises, one party's repudiation of a duty
    to render performance discharges the other party's
    remaining duties to render performance.
    -6-
    to perform (§§ 237, 238, 251, 253). This principle applies
    even though one party is already in breach by repudiation. His
    duty to pay damages is discharged if it subsequently appears
    that there would have been a total failure of performance by
    the injured party. . . . The result follows even if it appears
    that the failure [by the injured party] would have been
    justified and not a breach.
    (emphasis added).    As section 254 makes clear, while an anticipatory
    repudiation releases the nonbreaching party of any duty to perform,
    repudiation does not relieve the nonbreaching party of showing its ability
    to perform in order to obtain a remedy.          See also Gibbs, Nathaniel
    (Canada) Ltd. v. International Multifoods Corp., 
    804 F.2d 450
    , 452 (8th
    Cir. 1986) (Section 254 bars remedy for anticipatory repudiation when
    nonbreaching party could not have performed); Record Club of America, Inc.
    v. United Artists Records, Inc., 
    890 F.2d 1264
    , 1275 (2d Cir. 1989) (same);
    5 Williston on Contracts § 699, at 352-53 (3d ed. 1961); 4 Corbin on
    Contracts § 978, at 924-25 (1951).     To obtain a remedy, Southwest had to
    show that it would have been able to tender $2.45 million at closing.   This
    is true even though Acme, not Southwest, was in breach and Southwest had
    no obligation to proceed to closing.        Furthermore, the district court
    properly placed on Southwest the burden to prove that it would have been
    able to perform when that performance came due.     Panhandle Rehabilitation
    Ctr., Inc. v. Larson, 
    288 N.W.2d 743
    , 746 (Neb. 1980); 
    Tedco, 266 N.W.2d at 60-61
    ; 5 Williston § 699, at 353.
    Our de novo review of the record convinces us that Southwest failed
    to prove its ability to perform.      Southwest's general manager, Jeffrey
    Freeman, testified that Southwest had made some preliminary financing
    plans, including obtaining a loan commitment from a Colorado loan broker,
    First United Financial Corporation.    However, Freeman testified that by the
    time Southwest attempted to exercise its option, he "didn't like the way
    . . . the deal was structured," Tr. at 211, with First United and thought
    that there
    -7-
    were "better opportunities" for financing.                     Tr. at 210.      Furthermore, First
    United's president testified that First United had a corporate existence
    of only six to eight months, was never capitalized in excess of $10,000,
    brokered no real estate loans during its existence, and never obtained any
    written commitments from potential lenders regarding Southwest's purchase
    of the Lincoln hotel.
    Jeffrey Freeman also testified that Gencom Acquisition Corp., the
    buyer    of   a     Kansas    City   hotel     owned      by    Southwest's       principals,     was
    interested in partially financing the Lincoln hotel purchase. Southwest,
    however, introduced no evidence that Gencom's "interest" proceeded beyond
    mere discussion.        Furthermore, Gencom brought suit against Southwest for
    specific performance of the Kansas City transaction in December of 1994,
    during the closing period for the Southwest-Acme repurchase contract.
    Freeman also testified that "if push came to shove," Southwest would
    have been able to secure a loan from Stanley Bank, a Kansas bank with which
    Southwest had done business.                Tr. at 210.         Yet Southwest never actually
    approached Stanley Bank for financing, and Freeman testified that Southwest
    had primarily used Stanley Bank as a line of credit for operational
    expenses      and    "not    so   much      [as]    a    huge    lender    of   big     real   estate
    transactions."          Tr.    at    244.      Another         company    owned    by   Southwest's
    principals, Southwest Tracor of Nebraska, ultimately did obtain a loan
    commitment from Stanley Bank for purchase of the Lincoln hotel.                                  This
    commitment did not come, however, until October of 1995.                                There is no
    evidence that Stanley Bank did or would have extended such a loan to
    Southwest Tracor during the three-month closing period between November 1,
    1994 and January 31, 1995.
    To prevail in this action, Southwest had, of course, no obligation
    to continue seeking financing or to actually obtain financing after Acme
    breached.     Nevertheless, Southwest must still
    -8-
    prove that it could by some means have tendered to Acme $2.45 million by
    January 31, 1995.    In light of further evidence that Southwest was either
    insolvent or nearly so during this period, Southwest's evidence of its
    ability to close is not persuasive.        Finally, we note that the district
    court properly declined to consider the financial resources of Southwest's
    principals and their other businesses.     "``A proposed purchaser is not able
    to perform when he is depending upon third parties to make the purchase,
    which funds such persons are in no way bound to furnish.'"        
    Tedco, 266 N.W.2d at 61
    (quoting 71 Am.Jur.2d Specific Performance § 61, at 89);
    
    Sofio, 57 N.W.2d at 183
    .    Southwest did not prove its ability to tender the
    purchase price if it had gone to closing, and is not entitled to specific
    performance despite Acme's breach of the contract.
    III. CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -9-