Proctor v. Holden
Maryland Court of Special Appeals
540 A.2d 133 (1988)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Michael and Deborah Holden (plaintiffs) were searching for a new home. They applied for a mortgage with Magnet Mortgage. Shortly thereafter, John and Deborah Proctor (defendants) agreed to sell their home to the Holdens, subject to a financing contingency. The contingency clause in the contract required the Holdens to apply for financing within five days of the contract’s execution. The contract was signed on July 26, 1985. Pursuant to the contract, the Holdens paid the Proctors a $20,000 deposit. Soon after the contract was signed, Magnet Mortgage denied the Holdens’ application. On August 9, the Holdens applied for a mortgage from a second bank but were denied again. At this point, the Proctors offered to finance the purchase for the Holdens. The Holdens declined and instead requested a return of their deposit on account of their failure to obtain financing. The Proctors refused, and the Holdens brought suit in the Circuit Court for Talbot County. The jury found in favor of the Holdens. The Proctors appealed, arguing that the Holdens breached the contract by not complying with the five-day requirement and by refusing to accept the Proctors’ offer to finance.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alpert, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.
