Turbiville v. Hansen
Montana Supreme Court
761 P.2d 389 (1988)
Facts
Sharon Turbiville (plaintiff) signed a contract for deed to purchase a nightclub, in installments, from Erling and Avis Hansen (defendants). The contract prohibited Turbiville from jeopardizing the club’s liquor license. An escrow agreement between the parties and First National Bank and Trust Company (bank) (defendant) designated the bank as depository for Turbiville’s installment payments. The bank’s only other obligation under the escrow agreement was to cancel the contract, upon demand, should the Hansens ever give notice that Turbiville was in default. Over the next year, the bank called Turbiville whenever she fell behind in making her payments. Turbiville eventually decided to sell her interest in the club to a foreigner. Perhaps too hastily, the Hansens concluded that the sale would cost the club its liquor license. The Hansens notified the bank that Turbiville was in default, and the bank complied with the Hansens’ demand for the contract’s cancellation. Turbiville sued the Hansens but settled with them out of court. Turbiville also sued the bank, contending that the bank should not have canceled the contract without first verifying the basis for the Hansens’ cancellation demand. The trial court entered summary judgment for the bank. Turbiville appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Weber, J.)
Dissent (Hunt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
