Green v. Higgins

535 P.2d 446 (1975)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Green v. Higgins

Kansas Supreme Court
535 P.2d 446 (1975)

  • Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Play video

Facts

Damon and Cleo Higgins (defendants) sold a tract of land to Robert Brown and Mark Gilman. As part of the sale’s consideration, the Higginses agreed to give Brown and Gilman a right of first refusal to purchase an adjacent piece of land. Relatedly, the Higginses agreed to give Lienna McCulley, a real-estate agent, the right to handle any sale of the land tract to which Brown and Gilman had negotiated the right of first refusal. McCulley only had the right to handle the sale if it occurred prior to June 1, 1971. On April 21, 1971, the Higginses entered into a contract to sell the adjacent tract of land to Philip and Barbara Green (plaintiffs) for $30,000. At that time, the Greens gave the Higginses $100. The Higginses and the Greens dated the sale contract as June 2, 1971, to avoid having to pay McCulley a commission. The Higginses then told the Greens that Brown and Gilman held a right of first refusal to purchase the land. To address this problem, the Greens created a fake sale contract between the Higgins and a company owned by Philip Green for the excessive price of $40,000. The Higginses sent the fake sale contract to Brown and Gilman, who declined to exercise their right of first refusal. The Higginses then notified the Greens that they did not wish to sell the property. The Greens responded by sending the Higginses the remaining $29,900 of the purchase price and demanding a deed to the property. When the Higginses refused to sell, the Greens sued them for specific performance. The Higginses counterclaimed for damages and to quiet title to their land. The Greens moved for summary judgment. In response, the Higginses filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Greens should not be granted equitable relief because they had defrauded both McCulley, and Brown and Gilman. The district court found that both parties had come to court with unclean hands, making both ineligible for relief. The district court thus dismissed the Greens’ petition for specific performance and the Higginses’ counterclaim for damages and to quiet title. The Greens appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Prager, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 744,000 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
  2. 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 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership