DocketNumber: No. CV00 0177614
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 10903
Judges: D'ANDREA, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/6/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The court holds that the plaintiffs were not obligated to purchase the property because the defendants, Meredy L. Van Syckle and Alexander K Hamilton, could not deliver the premises subject to the conditions in the contract for sale. "A contract must be construed to effectuate the intent of the parties, which is determined from the language used interpreted in the light of the situation of the parties and the circumstances connected with the transaction." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) TallmadgeBros, Inc. v. Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.,
Here, the contract for sale provides in relevant part: "The deed shall, convey to the Buyer marketable fee simple title in and to the premises subject only to the encumbrances and/or liens as set forth on Schedule A." On January 28, 2000, the defendants, Alexander F. Hamilton and Meredy L. Van Syckle, along with Scott and Karen Candee entered into an easement involving the premises that placed additional obligations on the owners of the premises.1 In the contract for sale, the plaintiffs did not agree to purchase the premises with the January 28, 2000 easement since the easement was not set forth in schedule A. Moreover, even if the plaintiffs could obtain title insurance for the premises, they never contracted to purchase them with this encumbrance. Additionally, the plaintiffs may refuse to purchase the property because the obligation to maintain the insurance policy may cause them future litigation and CT Page 10905 expense. See Slattery v. Maykut, supra,
The court further finds that the plaintiffs did not agree to modify the contract for sale as contended by the defendants because the proposed amendment to the contract failed to comply with the statute of frauds. "Our statute of frauds, General Statutes §
The court grants the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment because the plaintiffs are entitled to a return of their deposit pursuant to the contract for sale. The plaintiffs did not contract to purchase the premises with the easement of January 28, 2000 and therefore had the right to reject any conveyance which was subject to said easement. The contract for sale provides: "[u]pon such rejection, all sums paid on account of this Agreement, without interest, but together with reasonable expenses actually incurred by the Buyer . . . shall be repaid to the Buyer." Therefore, the court grants the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on counts one and two and the defendants' counterclaim and denies the defendants' motion for summary judgment on their counterclaim.
So Ordered.
D'ANDREA, J.