Town Bank v. City Real Estate Development, LLC
Wisconsin Supreme Court
793 N.W.2d 476 (2010)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
On May 27, 2004, Town Bank (plaintiff) sent City Real Estate Development, LLC (City Real Estate) (defendant) a commitment letter that stated that Town Bank would loan City Real Estate $9 million for buying an office building and turning it into condominiums. The letter indicated that the first phase of the loan would be a $2.5 million loan for the purpose of buying the building. On July 15, 2004, the parties entered into a contract, under which Town Bank agreed to loan City Real Estate the $2.5 million so it could purchase the office building. The contract did not specifically mention the commitment letter or the additional $6.5 million. The contract did contain an integration clause that stated that the contract was “intended by Customer and Lender as a final expression of their agreement and as a complete and exclusive statement of its terms.” In February 2005, Town Bank informed City Real Estate that it would not be providing the remaining $6.5 million loan. Town Bank filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not required to provide the additional loan. City Real Estate filed a counterclaim for breach of contract stemming from Town Bank’s refusal to provide the additional loan. The trial court denied Town Bank’s motion for summary judgment and the jury found that Town Bank had breached the commitment letter. The court of appeals reversed. City Real Estate appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ziegler, J.)
Dissent (Bradley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
