Question

Urban owns a valuable 10 acre plot of property which he wants to divide in half (into two 5 acre parcels) and sell one of the halves. He tells Lovie that he can build 100 apartments on one of the halves, and specifically describes where the property lines would be (“It goes out to that tree, then to the water, then back…”). Lovie agrees to buy half from Urban, “as is” and they arrange to have the land surveyed. Urban was present when the survey was done and saw where stakes were pounded into the ground to mark the property boundary lines. Urban didn’t like where the lot lines were set because he would have been forced to keep a less valuable part of the property that was partially under water because of wetlands. After the surveyor left, and while Lovie was not present, Urban went onto the property and, without consent, moved the stakes marking the lot lines to make them MUCH more favorable to him. As a result, Lovie got less usable and valuable property than he bargained for and less than he was told he would get. Because of the wetlands on the property with the “revised” lot lines (as changed by Urban), there was no way Lovie could have built 100 apartments on the property. Can Lovie sue Urban? If so, under what legal theory? Identify the relevant theory (s) and analyze it, i.e. apply the theory to the facts and tell me who wins (and why).

Answer 1

In the given case, Urban had promised to sell one of the halves of his land to Lovie where Lovie could build 100 apartments. He also had specifically described the property line to Lovie. Hearing the same, Lovie had affirmed to buy the property and both Urban and Lovie had entered into a contract. However, when the land was surveyed, Urban found out that he will get the less valuable part of land. So he morphed the property lines, so as to make property more valuable for him. Lovie got a less usable and valuable property, which did not have enough space for 100 apartments.

In such a scenario, Lovie has full rights to sue Urban under specific performance. Specific performance is applicable to contracts of real estates. Here Lovie can state that he is not getting the property part from Urban as was promised and hence Urban has denied the specific performance of the contract. Lovie can also state that monetary damages is not sufficient and he needs the promised part of land as per the contract. Clearly Lovie will win as Urban had tampered the property lines for his benefit and Lovie would not be getting half of his property. The land surveyor can re-survey and affirm the same and hence the court will rule in Lovie’s favor.