 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dodd v. Long3/28/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION AFFIRMING
This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered against plaintiffs/appellants in their claim for funds owing under a contract defendants/appellees entered into to purchase a liquor store from appellants' late father and stepmother. The trial court based its judgment in large part on its interpretation of a prior Court of Appeals' opinion reversing and remanding a previous summary judgment in this case. Since the appeal before us hinges on the interpretation of this Court's previous opinion, we feel it necessary to set out this prior opinion, rendered December 23, 1999, in its entirety:
"Brothers George Randolph Dodd and Nathan E. Dodd appeal from a May 8, 1998, summary judgment of the Fulton Circuit Court dismissing their breach-of-contract and fraud complaint against brothers David Howard Long and Craig Allen Long. The trial court held that the parol evidence rule and the Statute of Frauds provide the Longs with an inescapable and total defense. For the reasons discussed below, we disagree and so remand the matter for additional proceedings.
At issue is the 1993 sale to the Longs of a retail liquor store owned at the time by a corporation comprising the Dodds' father, Bo, and stepmother, Anne. Because we are reviewing a summary judgment against them, we shall render the history of this transaction as favorably to the Dodds as the record reasonably allows. Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., Ky., 807 S.W.2d 476 (1991).
In the late spring of 1993, the Longs told Bo Dodd that they were interested in buying his liquor store. Negotiations commenced, and by mid-July the parties had fashioned the following agreement: The Longs would pay Bo approximately $395,000.00 for the business, of which almost $156,000.00 would be for the inventory. The balance, some $239,000.00, would be for the building, land, furniture, and fixtures. Of this $239,000.00, $25,000.00 would not appear in the documents memorializing the sale, but would be paid to Bo in cash "under the table." Bo was contemplating a divorce from Anne and desired to keep this portion of the transaction from her knowledge. Accordingly, the sales contract, executed in mid-July 1993, reflected a sales price of about $370,000.00. Pursuant to this written agreement, during the first two or three days of August 1993, the Longs paid approximately $156,000.00 cash for the inventory and executed a note for the balance of the nominal purchase price in the amount of $214,500.00. This balance was to be financed at 6% interest for four years and was secured by a mortgage on the real property. The note further provided that there was to be no down payment and that monthly installment payments would commence as of September 1, 1993. Pursuant to their unwritten understanding, the Longs also gave Bo three cashiers checks totaling $25,000.00.
A short time later, for reasons the record does not disclose, Anne fatally shot Bo. The $25,000.00 cash payment came to light. And, by inheritance and by settlement, respectively, Bo and Anne's interests in the note passed to the appellants. They received regular monthly payments from the Longs, but when the final balloon payment came due in September 1997, the Longs claimed credit for the $25,000.00 cash paid initially to Bo and so refused to pay what the Dodds maintained was the final $25,000.00 due under the note. The Dodds eventually brought suit for this amount, and, as we observed above, the trial court, invoking the parol evidence rule and the Statute of Frauds, granted summary judgment for the Longs.
Because summary judgments involve no fact finding, this Court reviews judgments de novo. As did
Page 1 2 3 4 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|