Green v. CurbeauGreen v. Curbeau
In 1990, Charles A. Curbeau, Emily Green and Clinton Bruce Green (hereinafter Green) jointly purchased a parcel of real property, placing title solely in Green‘s name. Emily Green is Curbeau‘s sister and Green‘s mother. The parties each contributed to expenses until 1995, at which time Green ceased contributing and the others each paid half of the expenses. On October 16, 1999, the parties executed a contract wherein Curbeau paid Green a small amount of money and agreed to assume the remaining mortgage payments in consideration for title to the property. Curbeau, who had been living on the property, continued to make the mortgage payments, but Green never executed a deed to transfer title. In February 2002, when Curbeau did not pay on the mortgage, the parties had a falling out and Green began making the full payments. Curbeau still continued to occupy the premises. Green later deeded the property to himself and Barbara G. McBath and refinanced the mortgage.
Curbeau subsequently commenced the second of these actions, seeking damages due to his removal from the property. Supreme Court granted a motion by Green and Emily Green to dismiss all causes of action. Curbeau appeals the judgment in action No. 1 and the order dismissing his complaint in action No. 2. We affirm.
Supreme Court properly declined to grant Curbeau immediate possession of and title to the property. The court granted him specific performance of the contract, which required a closing rather than immediate transfer of title, and—due to the inordinate delay following execution of the contract—required him to tender the mortgage payments from October 1999 until the date of closing before a closing would occur. Due to the existence of a joint venture and the financial questions created as a result of the parties’ dealings through that entity, the court reasonably allowed Curbeau credit only for mortgage payments sent directly to the lender, leaving payments between the parties to be sorted out as part of the winding up of the joint venture. Accordingly, Curbeau can obtain title and possession of the property by tendering the mortgage payments for the period at issue; his recovery for moneys provided to Green will be addressed when the joint venture is officially dissolved.
The jury did not err in determining that no contract existed concerning Curbeau‘s pension benefits. Curbeau named Green‘s daughter as the pop-up beneficiary of his pension plan, allegedly as part of an agreement where Green would pay Curbeau the
Curbeau is only entitled to $150 under
Supreme Court correctly dismissed Curbeau‘s complaint in action No. 2. The causes of action alleging timber trespass under
The parties’ remaining contentions have been reviewed and found to be without merit.
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Lahtinen and Kavanagh, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed, with costs.