The defendants (vendors) moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's (purchaser's) claim for the return of a $150,000 deposit and to grant their counterclaim for damages of $900,000 following an abortive real estate transaction.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidentiary record was inadequate and that there were numerous genuine issues requiring a trial, including alleged physical defects in the property and whether an oral agreement to reduce the purchase price was reached.
However, the court exercised its jurisdiction under Rule 20.05 to specify certain material facts not in dispute, such as the original purchase price being $2,250,000.
