Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
In plaintiff's suit against defendants to recover $620,000 deposit after he unilaterally canceled escrow, arising from an agreement to purchase defendants' beach residence for $14 million, trial court's judgment in favor of defendants is reversed and remanded where: 1) in a rising market, the seller of real property is limited to the recovery of consequential damages and interest against the buyer who breached the purchase agreement; 2) defendants' retention of plaintiff's deposit in the circumstance of a rising market, presented here, constituted an invalid forfeiture under Freeman v. Rector; and 3) the trial court erred by concluding defendants were entitled to plaintiff's deposit as separate and additional consideration for defendants' agreements to extend escrow.
Read Kuish v. Smith, No. G040743 [HTML]
Read Kuish v. Smith, No. G040743 [PDF]
Filed February 10, 2010
Opinion by Judge Fybel
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.