Louisiana Real Estate Commission v. Butler
Louisiana Court of Appeal
899 So.2d 151 (2005)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
In order to bring all the disputants before the court, and pursuant to the state's concursus statute, the Louisiana Real Estate Commission (plaintiff) sued Dr. Brett Butler, Dr. Edward Crocker, and their wives (defendants). The Butlers prepared a contract for the purchase of the Crockers' house. The contract stipulated that the purchase was contingent on the Butlers' obtaining a loan, in a sum "to be determined," at an interest rate of 8.5 percent. The contract also memorialized the Butlers' representation that they had sufficient funds to complete the transaction. The Crockers accepted the Butlers' offer and the Butlers made a $12,500 down payment toward the purchase price. The Butlers applied to a bank for a loan covering 90 percent of the property's value, to be secured by a mortgage on the property. The bank turned down the Butlers' application. Consequently, the Butlers withdrew their purchase offer. The Crockers refused to refund the Butlers' down payment. The Butlers argued that the contract was void due to a mutual misunderstanding as to the amount they would seek to finance. The trial court ruled that the Crockers were entitled to keep the down payment. The Butlers appealed to the state appeals court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ezell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.