|
No. 133462
| In Re Egbert R. Smith Trust, Glen Phillips and |
|
Donald J. Clark |
| Dale Phillips, |
|
|
Petitioners-Appellees, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Sanilac Prob - Clbuesch, D.) |
|
|
| Betty Homer, Successor Trustee, |
|
|
| Respondent-Appellant. |
|
John S. Paterson |
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Petitioners-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>
Respondent-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
State Bar of Michigan-Real Property Law Section's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Glen and Dale Phillips, the petitioners in this case, leased farm land owned by the Egbert R. Smith testamentary trust. The lease provided that the petitioners had the right to match any bona fide offer to purchase the leased property. Respondent Betty Homer, the trust’s personal representative, received an offer from Orville Ganstine to purchase the property for $225,000. Homer’s attorney sent a letter to the petitioners, stating “Pursuant to the lease, it is required that you have the right to match any bona fide offer presented. This letter is to inform you that Ms. Homer has a signed purchase agreement with the offer of $225,000 for the farm. You must notify our office of your decision to exercise your option within 30 days.” Less than two weeks later, Homer’s attorney sent a second letter to the petitioners, stating that Homer “had declined the [Ganstine] offer,” that she “will not be selling the farm at this time,” and that she “will await the end of the lease term before selling the farm.” Four days later, the petitioners notified Homer of their intent to exercise their right of first refusal. This notice was sent within the specified 30-day period. When Homer refused to sell the property to the petitioners, the petitioners filed a complaint for specific performance. The trial court granted Homer’s motion for summary disposition, ruling that Homer had withdrawn her offer to sell before the petitioners accepted it, so no enforceable contract of sale was created between the parties when the petitioners purported to accept Homer’s offer to sell. The Court of Appeals reversed in a published opinion. The Court of Appeals reasoned that, once the petitioners received notice of Ganstine’s offer, their right of first refusal became an option that Homer could not revoke during the 30-day period specified in the lease. Homer appeals.
Top of Page
|
