Kovarik v. Vesely
Wisconsin Supreme Court
89 N.W.2d 279, 3 Wis. 2d 573 (1958)

- Written by Laura Julien, JD
Facts
On July 6, 1956, Emil and Lorraine Kovarik (plaintiffs) entered into a real estate contract with George and Viola Vesely (defendants) for the purchase of land. The contract contained both an offer and acceptance. It also established a purchase price of $11,000, with $4,000 to be paid to the Veselys’ real estate broker and $7,000 to be in the form of a purchase-money mortgage. Shortly thereafter, the Kovariks applied to the bank for a $7,000 mortgage loan. On August 10, the Kovariks were informed by the bank that their loan application had been denied. The Kovariks requested the return of the $4,000 down payment. The Veselys refused to return the funds but tendered an abstract of title stating that they were willing to issue a first mortgage to the Kovariks on the same terms as the bank. The Kovariks declined the Veselys’ offer and filed suit seeking recovery of the $4,000. The Veselys filed a counterclaim seeking specific performance of the real estate contract. The trial court found in favor of the Veselys and dismissed the Kovariks’ complaint. The Kovariks appealed the judge’s order for specific performance on the basis that the real estate contract failed to comply with the statute of frauds because the terms of the $7,000 mortgage were not specifically set forth in the contract documents.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Currie, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.