Amanda Butler
Stambovsky v. Ackley (Case Brief 1)
Facts
Ackley sold a house “possessed by poltergeists” to Stambovsky, without informing him that it was possessed. Stambovsky was not a local and did not know anything about the house’s reputation.
Procedural History
Stambovsky sued to have the purchasing of the house and contract reversed.
The trial court dismissed the issue.
Stambovsky appealed the dismissal of the suit.
Issue
Can a contract of this type be reversed or cancelled because the seller does not give such information to the buyer?
Holding
The buyer can cancel or reverse the contract because the house being possessed by poltergeists affects the value of the property.
Judgment
The decision to dismiss the case was reversed and the suit to cancel the …show more content…
v. North Conway Bank (Case Brief 2)
Facts
In 1986, Echo leased the lower floor of a building. The bank (Conway) then purchased that building from the previous landlord. The lease was then assumed by Conway. During 1987, Conway did renovations on the building, causing occasional interruptions and limiting the rear parking lot. The bank also changed locks on the front doors, which made it so Echo employees could not use the doors when the back door was under construction.
Procedural History
Echo sued Conway bank for constructive eviction, partial actual eviction, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and of the lease.
The superior court ruled against each claim.
Echo appealed, stating that the court made several errors. These errors include: confusing constructive eviction and partial actual eviction, that locking the front doors was not partial actual eviction, finding there was no constructive eviction, and using the wrong legal test when determining whether or not there was a breach of quiet enjoyment.
Issue
Did the court err in their decision to deny a constructive or partial actual eviction? Did the court use the wrong test in terms of quiet enjoyment?
Stambovsky v. Ackley (Case Brief 1)
Facts
Ackley sold a house “possessed by poltergeists” to Stambovsky, without informing him that it was possessed. Stambovsky was not a local and did not know anything about the house’s reputation.
Procedural History
Stambovsky sued to have the purchasing of the house and contract reversed.
The trial court dismissed the issue.
Stambovsky appealed the dismissal of the suit.
Issue
Can a contract of this type be reversed or cancelled because the seller does not give such information to the buyer?
Holding
The buyer can cancel or reverse the contract because the house being possessed by poltergeists affects the value of the property.
Judgment
The decision to dismiss the case was reversed and the suit to cancel the …show more content…
v. North Conway Bank (Case Brief 2)
Facts
In 1986, Echo leased the lower floor of a building. The bank (Conway) then purchased that building from the previous landlord. The lease was then assumed by Conway. During 1987, Conway did renovations on the building, causing occasional interruptions and limiting the rear parking lot. The bank also changed locks on the front doors, which made it so Echo employees could not use the doors when the back door was under construction.
Procedural History
Echo sued Conway bank for constructive eviction, partial actual eviction, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment and of the lease.
The superior court ruled against each claim.
Echo appealed, stating that the court made several errors. These errors include: confusing constructive eviction and partial actual eviction, that locking the front doors was not partial actual eviction, finding there was no constructive eviction, and using the wrong legal test when determining whether or not there was a breach of quiet enjoyment.
Issue
Did the court err in their decision to deny a constructive or partial actual eviction? Did the court use the wrong test in terms of quiet enjoyment?