The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) that required the defendants to sever and reconvey a 7-acre parcel of a 56-acre property back to the plaintiff for nominal consideration.
The defendants argued that the terms were ambiguous and subject to ongoing negotiations.
The court found the APS terms clear and unambiguous, applied the parol evidence rule to exclude the defendants' evidence of subjective intentions, and granted summary judgment for specific performance, noting the unique nature of the property.
