Meadow Homes Development Corp. v. Bowens
Colorado Court of Appeals
211 P.3d 743 (2009)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Greatrock North Water and Sanitation District issued a bond to pay for property-development costs pursuant to an agreement executed by the Horvats, Meadow Homes Development Corporation (Meadow) (plaintiff), and Ronald Bowens (defendant). According to the agreement, the Horvats were entitled to keep the bond as long as they closed on the property. If the Horvats did not obtain the property, the agreement required the Horvats to sell the bond to Meadow for $50,000. After the Horvats failed to close on the property, Meadow closed the property instead and made a demand to the Horvats for the bond. The Horvats refused to deliver the bond to Meadow, because they had already secretly transferred the bond to Bowens. Meadow brought suit against Bowens, seeking an order requiring Bowens to transfer the bond to Meadow upon payment of the $50,000. The trial court ruled in Meadow’s favor, concluding that (1) the Horvats had transferred the bond to Bowens despite Meadow’s superior rights and (2) Bowens was not a protected purchaser under Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 8-303, because Bowens was aware of Meadow’s adverse claim at the time he acquired the bond. Bowens appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Connelly, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 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.