Daniels v. Anderson
Illinois Supreme Court
642 N.E.2d 128 (1994)
- Written by Dennis Chong, JD
Facts
In 1977, Daniels (plaintiff) contracted with Jacula and Anderson (defendants) to purchase land. The sale included a right of first refusal in a contiguous plot, such that Daniels would be offered the chance to buy the land for whatever price a prospective buyer was willing to pay for it. The contract of sale was not recorded, and the deed recording this sale did not mention the right of first refusal. In 1985, Zografos (defendant) contracted with Jacula and Anderson to buy the contiguous plot for $60,000. Zografos put down $10,000 initially and provided a note for the balance. Before June 1986, Zografos paid an additional $30,000 toward the purchase price. In June 1986, Zografos learned of Daniels’s right of first refusal for Daniels’s wife. In August 1986, Zografos paid off the remaining $20,000 on the note. Daniels sued to enforce his right of first refusal. The trial court ruled that Zografos could not be considered a bona fide purchaser because he knew of Daniels’s right of first refusal at the time he took title to the land; that is, when he made his last payment to Jacula and Anderson. The trial court ordered that Zografos convey the land to Daniels, and that Daniels pay to Zografos $60,000, plus $11,000 on property taxes that Zografos had paid on the land. The appellate court affirmed, and Zografos appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Freeman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.