Sign Up for Vincent AI
Jackson v. Crump
Parker Hurst & Burnett PLC, Jonesboro, by: Donald L. Parker II and Ronald S. Burnett, Jr., for appellants.
Lyons & Cone, P.L.C., Jonesboro, by: Jim Lyons and David D. Tyler, for appellee.
This case is a companion to Jackson v. Crump , 2022 Ark. App. 136, 643 S.W.3d 788, also handed down today. In both cases Vela and Tommy Williams (the Williamses) appeal the circuit court's orders granting specific performance of an option for the purchase of real property in favor of appellee Ronnie Crump (Crump).1 The Williamses argue that both options violate the statute of frauds and are unenforceable. The Williamses also argues other different points in each case. We affirm.
On May 29, 2007, in connection with their purchase of a seventy-two-acre tract of farmland from Lillian Crump, the Williamses granted an option to purchase to appellee Ronnie Crump. Lillian Crump is the mother of Ronnie Crump. The option, after identification of the parties and the legal description of the property, provided as follows:
A "Cash Farm Lease" was executed contemporaneously by the parties allowing Crump to farm the seventy-two-acre tract for a ten-year period for an annual cash rent of $9,300 payable to the Williamses by December 31 of each crop year. The lease provided that any failure by Crump to pay rent terminated the lease. The lease also provided that, in addition, the option becomes void.
The deed conveying the property from Lillian Crump to the Williamses was recorded on May 29, 2007.
On June 9, 2009, the Williamses and Crump entered into a second contract that terminated the lease.2 The 2009 contract provided as follows:
Attached to the contract were copies of the leases being terminated. Crump discontinued paying the cash rent and farming the seventy-two-acre tract thereafter.
Lillian Crump died in December 2010.
Crump exercised the option by sending the Williamses letters from both himself and his attorney dated June 7, 2017. The Williamses refused to comply.
Crump filed suit on December 22, 2017, seeking specific performance to compel the Williamses to convey the property to him. The Williamses answered, denying the material allegations. They also asserted that the option was contingent upon Crump's performance of his obligations under the lease and that he had failed to perform. The Williamses also pled the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense. The lease was attached as an exhibit to the answer.
The two cases proceeded on parallel tracks. There were several disputes about the Williamses’ cooperating and answering discovery, and Crump filed several motions to compel. During these earlier disputes, the circuit court awarded Crump $2,500 in attorney's fees as a sanction for discovery violations in both cases. Finally, in November 2018, the circuit court issued similar orders on the outstanding discovery disputes. The court found that the Williamses did not file timely responses to the discovery and had not acted in good faith in complying with earlier discovery orders. The court did not strike the Williamses’ answer but said it would reconsider if there were further discovery violations. The court imposed other sanctions, including limiting the Williamses to using witnesses and documents already identified in the discovery responses.
On December 31, 2018, the Williamses moved for summary judgment arguing that Crump had not complied with the special condition precedent to his exercise of the option. The motion asserted that Crump had failed to fulfill the terms of the lease, including failing to pay rent, which terminated the lease. According to the Williamses, the termination of the lease also voided Crump's option to purchase. In a supporting brief, the Williamses claimed that Crump did not pay the cash rent for the 2008 crop year. They further claimed that the parties’ termination of the lease also rendered the option void.
In his response to the Williamses’ motion for summary judgment, Crump pointed out that the Williamses ignored the June 2009 contract terminating the lease. He also argued that it was generally a factual question whether a condition precedent has been met or excused.
On January 18, 2019, Crump moved for summary judgment, seeking specific performance. He asserted that the purchase price was $255,000; that he was ready, willing, and able to purchase the property; that the Williamses failed to convey the property after he had exercised the option; and that he was entitled to specific performance because of the Williamses’ breach for failure to close. He also alleged that the contract terminating the leases provided that all of the provisions of the leases were null and void and unenforceable; that the contract did not mention the option; and that the option remained in full force and effect.
The Williamses responded to Crump's motion for summary judgment by arguing that the option was invalid and unenforceable because an option is merely a unilateral contract. They further argued that the option failed to satisfy the statute of frauds, and even if it did, it was unenforceable because it failed to include seven other terms they deemed essential. The Williamses also asserted that Crump's failure to comply with the option's special condition rendered the option unenforceable. The Williamses filed supporting affidavits stating that Crump had failed to pay rent for the 2008 crop year and...
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialExperience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting