From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Bushmiller v. Schiller
Maryland Court of Appeals
368 A.2d 1044 (1977)
Eunice Schiller (plaintiff) agreed to purchase a home from Joseph Bushmiller (defendant). The contract required Schiller to pay a deposit of $13,000 to Bushmiller. Under the contract, if Schiller failed to complete the purchase, the deposit would be forfeited. However, the contract was contingent on Schiller obtaining financing for $100,000 with a term of 20 years at the prevailing interest rate within 10 days. Schiller was required to pursue financing and file all necessary papers that are required to complete processing, including resubmission and appeal if necessary. The contract was executed on July 25, 1975. Prior to the execution of the contract, Schiller had discussed the possibility of financing with The Equitable Trust Company and filled out a loan application. The loan officer indicated that the bank would likely offer financing based on a 20-year amortization plan with a five-year balloon. On July 27, Schiller visited her son and learned what balloon financing meant. In the next few days, Schiller called the bank and withdrew her application. On August 6, Schiller told Bushmiller’s agent that she was no longer interested in buying the home based on the issue with financing and that the home was too expensive. Schiller also told the bank’s loan officer that she was not interested in the financing that included the balloon payment. The loan officer responded that the bank was not willing to offer financing on any other terms. Schiller did not seek financing from any other banks. On August 7, Schiller requested the security deposit back based on her failure to obtain financing. On October 13, Bushmiller responded that he was able to facilitate financing at the prevailing interest rates for her, but, if she chose not to go forward with the sale, Bushmiller was going to keep the deposit. Schiller then sued Bushmiller, seeking a refund of the deposit. The trial court ruled in favor of Schiller, and Bushmiller appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Melvin, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 619,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 619,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.