全是英文

长风落日 · 发表于 2006-5-15 19:25:00

resent:  All the Justices STEVEN Q. BECK AND BEVERLY S. BECK v.  Record No. 992904     OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY                                   <date month="11" day="3" year="2000">November 3, 2000</date>WALTER E. SMITH FROM THE <place><placename>CIRCUIT</placename>
<placetype>COURT</placetype>
<placename>OF</placename>
<placename>CULPEPER</placename>
<placetype>COUNTY</placetype></place>Arthur W. Sinclair, Judge Designate    In this appeal, we consider a judgment of the trial court vacating a jury verdict and entering judgment against the buyers of property on the ground that they could not prevail as a matter of law on (1) a breach of contract claim because the terms of the contract for sale of property were merged into the deed, or on (2) a claim of fraud because the buyers had authorized a title search.The facts are not in dispute.  In August 1995, Steven Q. Beck and his wife Beverly S. Beck (collectively "the Becks") executed a contract with Walter E. Smith for the purchase of unimproved real estate owned by Smith.  The contract included provisions requiring Smith to obtain a building permit for the construction of a three-bedroom house on the property and to provide a general warranty deed subject to utility easements that "do not materially and adversely effect [sic] the Purchaser's intended use of the Property . . . ."On <date month="2" day="6" year="1996">February 6, 1996</date>, Smith granted a utility easement to Rappahannock Electric Cooperative (<place>Rappahannock</place>) across a portion of the land upon which the Becks' house was to be built.  The easement was recorded on February 7.<a title="" href="http://bbs.xiasha.cn/post.asp?action=new&boardid=111#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;"><span lang="EN-US" style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Courier New"; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 宋体; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">[1]</a>  Settlement occurred two days later, <date month="2" day="9" year="1996">February 9, 1996</date>.

rior to settlement, the Becks engaged the settlement attorney to conduct a title search on their behalf.  Neither the settlement attorney nor Smith told the Becks about <place>Rappahannock</place>'s recorded easement prior to, or at, the settlement.  The deed of conveyance did not specifically identify <place>Rappahannock</place>'s easement, reciting only that the conveyance was made subject to any easements "contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments . . . ."  <place>Rappahannock</place> subsequently began to construct an electric transmission line utilizing the easement.The Becks filed a motion for judgment against Smith for breach of contract and fraud.  The Becks alleged that <place>Rappahannock</place>'s easement materially and adversely affected their intended use of the property contrary to the terms of the sales agreement and that, by failing to tell the Becks of the easement, Smith knowingly misrepresented material facts upon which the Becks relied at settlement.Following presentation of evidence, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Becks on both counts.  The Becks were awarded $30,900 compensatory damages and $3,000 consequential damages on the breach of contract count.  The jury also awarded the Becks $10,000 in compensatory

fengzhibaihe · 发表于 2006-5-15 19:29:00

<

>找翻译？

		自动登录	找回密码
密码			注册论坛(EC通行证)

全是英文

相关帖子

下沙大学生网推荐 /1