Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuittrialspecific performance
contracttrialspecific performance

Related Cases

Bander v. Grossman, 161 Misc.2d 119, 611 N.Y.S.2d 985, 23 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1159
View Case »
Siam v. Mountain Vista Builders, 544 S.W.3d 504
View Case »
Garrison v. Target Corporation, 435 S.C. 566, 869 S.E.2d 797
View Case »
Bellwether Community Credit Union v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 353 F.Supp.3d 1070
View Case »
Hickson Corp. v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 260 F.3d 559, 2001 Fed.App. 0257P
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ash Park, LLC v. Alexander & Bishop, Ltd., 324 Wis.2d 703, 2010 WI 44, 783 N.W.2d 294

Facts

In 2007, Ash Park owned a vacant parcel of real estate and entered into a contract with Alexander & Bishop to sell the property for $6.3 million, with a closing date set for December 14, 2007. The contract included a leasing contingency allowing Alexander & Bishop to terminate if they could not secure an anchor tenant by July 20, 2007. Although Alexander & Bishop initially terminated the contract, they later signed an agreement to reinstate it. However, they failed to close on the property, leading Ash Park to file a lawsuit for specific performance.

In 2007, Ash Park owned a vacant parcel of real estate and entered into a contract with Alexander & Bishop to sell the property for $6.3 million, with a closing date set for December 14, 2007. The contract included a leasing contingency allowing Alexander & Bishop to terminate if they could not secure an anchor tenant by July 20, 2007.

Issue

Did the circuit court err in granting specific performance without requiring Ash Park to demonstrate that a legal remedy would be inadequate?

Did the circuit court err in granting specific performance without requiring Ash Park to demonstrate that a legal remedy would be inadequate?

Rule

Under Wisconsin law, specific performance is an available remedy for a seller of real estate upon the buyer's breach, and the seller is not required to demonstrate that a legal remedy is inadequate as a prerequisite to an award of specific performance.

Under Wisconsin law, specific performance is an available remedy for a seller of real estate upon the buyer's breach, and the seller is not required to demonstrate that a legal remedy is inadequate as a prerequisite to an award of specific performance.

Analysis

The court determined that the contract explicitly provided for specific performance as a remedy, and Wisconsin law does not impose a requirement for the seller to prove inadequacy of legal remedies. The court also noted that Alexander & Bishop failed to present evidence that performance was impossible, thus supporting the decision to grant specific performance.

The court determined that the contract explicitly provided for specific performance as a remedy, and Wisconsin law does not impose a requirement for the seller to prove inadequacy of legal remedies.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, concluding that the trial court did not err in awarding specific performance and that the imposition of interest on the purchase price was also within the court's discretion.

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, concluding that the trial court did not err in awarding specific performance and that the imposition of interest on the purchase price was also within the court's discretion.

Who won?

Ash Park, LLC prevailed in the case because the court found that specific performance was warranted under the terms of the contract and Wisconsin law.

Ash Park, LLC prevailed in the case because the court found that specific performance was warranted under the terms of the contract and Wisconsin law.

You must be