Laserfiche WebLink
Page 8 --August 10. 2004 <br /> <br /> Sales Agreement -- Agreement fails to specify exclu'ded acreage <br /> Seller claims entire agreement unenJbrceable <br /> Citariom' Lexingrm~ Heights Deve{opmenr LLC v. CrartdIemire, S~preme Court <br /> o~'Idc~ho, No. 29479 (20~)4) <br /> IDAI-{O (05/27/04) -- Crandlent/re owned a 95-acre parcel of property. He <br /> entered into an agreement to sell 90 acres of it to Lexington Heights Develop- <br /> ment LLC. <br /> The agreement excluded Crandlemire's residential dwelling. The purchase <br />price was based upon the density limits per acre approved by the city of Eagle. <br />~lso, Lexington Heights was required to secure approval from all necessary <br />government agencies permitting development of the property at a density of <br />not less than ,>ne. residential dwelling per two acres. Under the e~sting zon- <br />ing, residential lots had to be five acres or larger in size. <br /> Because of difficulties in permitting and getting the development under- <br />way, Crandlemire ultimately decided to sell a portion of the property to a third <br />party. <br /> LeXington sued, and the court ruled in favor of Crandlemire. <br /> Lexington appealed, arguing the agreement was sufiicient ro constitute an <br />agreement for sale. <br />DECISION': Affirmed. <br /> The agreement was invalid because it did not contain a sufficient descrip- <br />tion of the excluded property. <br /> Although the agreement provided the parcel excluded from sale would <br />include the land on which the residence, swimming pool, tennis court, and <br />volleyball court were located, the excluded property was not limited to such <br />land.. <br /> The agreement excluded "the existing resident/at dwelling situated on the <br />premises together ~vith no more than five acres immediately surrounding the <br />proposed residential development (which five acres will include the existing <br />tennis court, volleyball court, and swimming pool)." Thus, it was clear from <br />the face of the agreement the excluded property was more than the land on <br />which these structures were located. <br /> Available evidence could certainly identify ~he structures described, but <br />there was nothing in the agreement to identify the boundaries of the five-acre <br />parcel that would include, but not be limited to, the land on which those struc- <br />tures were located. <br /> [mportandy, ti~e ~t~reement did not :efbrence any b~tmdaries of the <br />c!udeci parc~l b,,' any structure or landmark. <br /> <br />86 <br /> <br /> <br />