From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Gassner

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 24, 1981
632 P.2d 1318 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

No. A79-03-01294, CA 17168

Argued and submitted April 20, 1981

Affirmed August 24, 1981

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

William R. Riggs, Judge.

James A. Cox, Lake Oswego, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief was Richard J. Geisert, Lake Oswego.

Thomas K. Hooper, Portland, argued the cause for respondents Gassner. With him on the brief were William P. Hutchison, Jr. and Hutchinson, Hutchison Hooper, Portland.

Robert E. Martin, Portland, waived appearance for respondent Kraljev.

Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Roberts and Young, Judges.


YOUNG, J.

Affirmed.


This action for specific performance was tried as a companion case to Wallstreet Properties v. Gassner, 53 Or. App. 650, 632 P.2d 1310 (1981). Both actions arose out of a contemplated three-way, tax-deferred exchange of real property.

On December 5, 1977, defendants Gassner executed an earnest money agreement to sell their apartment complex to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs knew they were not to receive that property directly from defendants Gassner. The parties understood that defendants Gassner would exchange their property with that of a third party, defendant Kraljev. The third party would then convey the property to plaintiffs for the purchase price. The earnest money agreement executed by the parties provided that it was "subject to seller [defendants Gassner] effecting a tax-deferred exchange agreement."

Defendants Gassner subsequently entered into an exchange agreement with the third party. The transaction was not completed. Wallstreet Properties was one of the brokers involved and brought an action to recover its commission. In Wallstreet Properties v. Gassner, supra, we held the exchange agreement was not, as a matter of law, specifically enforceable against defendants Gassner and affirmed a decree in their favor.

In this appeal plaintiffs contend the three-way exchange was not completed because of wrongful hindrance by defendants Gassner. Our review is de novo. ORS 19.125(3). We have reviewed the record and are not persuaded to reach a conclusion different from that reached by the trial court. The decree denying specific performance is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Miller v. Gassner

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 24, 1981
632 P.2d 1318 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

Miller v. Gassner

Case Details

Full title:MILLER et ux, Appellants, v. GASSNER et al, Respondents

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 24, 1981

Citations

632 P.2d 1318 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)
632 P.2d 1318

Citing Cases

Wallstreet Properties v. Gassner

Relief was denied in both cases. The suit for specific performance is Miller v. Gassner, 53 Or. App. 647, 632…

In re U.S. Forest Industries Inc.

According to the Letter of Intent, the Buyer's duty to purchase the mill would become binding only upon…