Deckert v. McCormick
2014 ND 231
| N.D. | 2014Background
- In 2006, McCormick conveyed two quarter sections to each child with life estates and granted Deckerts a purchase option on the same property for $200 per acre, exercisable before December 31, 2015.
- McCormick reserved a life estate to herself and Hertz obtained a quit claim with life estate; option terms required tender of full cash price and delivery of abstracts after exercise.
- The Deckerts learned of the option years later, requested abstracts, and sought to exercise it in 2012 but did not tender the purchase price at that time.
- McCormick refused abstracts and asserted the option could be revoked; Deckerts obtained a new abstract and financing but never tendered $64,000.
- In 2013 the Deckerts sued for declaratory judgment, specific performance, and quiet title; the district court granted summary judgment revoking the option as gratuitous and not exercised.
- This Court affirmed, holding there was no tender of the purchase price and no proper exercise of the option; the option was a gratuitous gift that could be withdrawn before acceptance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deckerts properly exercised the option | Deckerts contend an exercise occurred upon notice and request for abstracts. | McCormick argues no proper exercise occurred without tender of full price. | No proper exercise; tender required before exercise. |
| Whether the option had consideration binding it open | Deckerts claim consideration kept the offer open through 2015. | McCormick asserts the option was gratuitous with no consideration. | Option was gratuitous; no binding open period. |
| Whether McCormick validly revoked the option before acceptance | Deckerts maintain revocation occurred after they attempted exercise. | McCormick maintained she revoked the option by letters dated 2012–2013. | Revocation before acceptance was valid; no enforceable contract. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion on Rule 56(f) | Deckerts sought additional time to respond to determine the option’s intent. | No need for further time since the contract terms were unambiguous. | No abuse; no need for further time. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kennedy v. Dennstadt, 31 N.D. 422, 154 N.W. 271 (1915) (abstract delivery as a condition precedent if contract so provides)
- Mitzel (Northern Plains Alliance, L.L.C. v. Mitzel), 2003 ND 91, 663 N.W.2d 169 (ND 2003) (exercise of option requires tender of price unless terms differ)
- Horgan v. Russell, 23 N.D. 490, 140 N.W. 99 (1913) (strict construal of option exercise; payment as performance incident)
- Overboe v. Overboe, 160 N.W.2d 650 (ND 1968) (abstract delivery not explicit when not required by contract terms)
- Fraley v. Bentley, 1 Dakota 25, 46 N.W. 506 (1874) (consideration in a deed not conclusively proven by recital)
- Pifer v. McDermott, 2013 ND 153, 836 N.W.2d 432 (ND 2013) (options without consideration may be withdrawn before acceptance)