Armstrong v. Csurilla
New Mexico Supreme Court
817 P.2d 1221 (1991)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
William and Josephine Csurilla (defendants) agreed to purchase a gasoline station and adjacent property from Calvin and Dorothy Armstrong (plaintiffs). The combined contract price for both properties was $231,594. Shortly after the sale contracts were executed, the Csurillas failed to make payments under the gas-station contract. The Csurillas continued to run the gas station for a short period of time before closing it a few months later. By the time the Armstrongs repossessed the gas station the following year, it was in severe disrepair and had significantly diminished in value. The Armstrongs brought suit against the Csurillas for breach of contract. The trial court found that the Csurillas had breached the contracts for both properties, and ordered foreclosure. In a judicial sale, the Armstrongs purchased both properties for a total price of $90,000. The Csurillas objected, arguing that the sale should not be confirmed, based on the extreme disparity between the sale price and the actual values of the properties. At a hearing on the issue, the Csurillas did not proffer any evidence establishing the actual values of the properties and had not conducted any formal appraisals. The trial court determined that the sale was fair, ordered confirmation, and entered a significant deficiency judgment against the Csurillas. The Csurillas appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Montgomery, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.