3 total
A writ of execution filed after an agreement of purchase and sale is signed does not bind the purchaser's equitable interest.
The plaintiff obtained a summary judgment against the defendant vendor for an aborted real estate transaction.
After the appeal period expired, the plaintiff filed a writ of seizure and sale against the vendor's property.
However, prior to the writ being filed, the vendor had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with a third-party purchaser.
The plaintiff brought a motion for an interim order to prevent the transfer of the property and declare its writ valid.
The court dismissed the motion, applying the principle that once an agreement of purchase and sale is signed, the purchaser acquires an equitable interest in the property, and a subsequently filed writ of execution against the vendor does not bind the purchaser's interest.
A text message validly extended a real estate closing date, entitling the buyer to damages for the seller's breach.
This motion for summary judgment concerned a failed real estate transaction where the buyer, Kandlproperties Inc., sought specific performance or damages from the seller, Big Bang Consulting Inc. The central issues were whether a text message constituted valid written notice to extend the closing date and the appropriate remedy.
The court found that the text message validly extended the closing date, making the seller, Big Bang, in breach of the agreement.
However, specific performance was denied as the property was not deemed unique, and damages were found to be an adequate remedy.
Damages were assessed based on the fair market value of the property at the date of breach.
Action dismissed as a nullity because the plaintiff was an undischarged bankrupt without capacity to sue.
The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant, alleging misappropriation of funds.
The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action as statute-barred.
The court found that the plaintiff was an undischarged bankrupt when the action was commenced, meaning the cause of action had vested in the trustee in bankruptcy and the plaintiff lacked capacity to sue.
The action was therefore a nullity.
Furthermore, the limitation period had expired, precluding any curative order.
The defendant's cross-motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and the plaintiffs' motion was dismissed.
