Reilly v. Sageser
Washington Court of Appeals
2 Wash. App. 6, 467 P.2d 358 (1970)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
Glen and Mabel Reilly (plaintiffs) acquired property under a real estate contract and executed a quitclaim deed to themselves and to Bernard and Marguerite Sageser (defendants). The deed specified that the parties were joint tenants of the property with the right of survivorship, not tenants in common. The parties also signed an agreement stating that the parties would each pay half of the financial obligations owed under the real estate contract and split the costs of operation and upkeep equally. The agreement stipulated that if one side defaulted on their obligations under the agreement, the obligations would be due on demand. An addendum stated that if a party wished to withdraw from the agreement or if Glen or Bernard died or became permanently disabled, then the other party would purchase the interest of the deceased, disabled, or withdrawing party. Later, the Reillys sued the Sagesers for failing to pay the agreed-upon expenses. The Sagesers filed a cross-complaint claiming that the Reillys had waived the Sagesers’ obligation to contribute and asked the court to partition the property. The court awarded damages to the Reillys but ruled that the property should be partitioned because the parties were unable to agree on the use and maintenance of the property. The Reillys appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pearson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.
