Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Property — specific performance

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 24, 2013//

Property — specific performance

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//October 24, 2013//

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Property — specific performance

This is a dispute over a proposal to purchase property that has the potential to be used as a source of “fracking sand.” After the deal fell through, the interested buyer, Matejka, filed suit seeking specific performance. Matejka alleged that there was an enforceable land purchase agreement. Both parties moved for summary judgment. ¶2 Matejka argued before the circuit court, and now argues on appeal, that there was an agreement that included a typical land sale and an additional agreement that, if Matejka later sold the land for use as a frac sand mine, Matejka would pay the seller, Melnik, an additional sum of money. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Melnik, and dismissed the suit. The circuit court concluded, in essence, that it was undisputed that the parties failed to agree on the frac sand component of an overall deal and this failure meant that there was no agreement as a matter of law. Matejka argues that he, not Melnik, is entitled to summary judgment, but also argues in the alternative that summary judgment is inappropriate because a disputed material fact remains.

We agree with the circuit court that the undisputed facts require summary judgment in favor of Melnik. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2013AP264 Matejka v. Melnik

Dist IV, Jackson County, Lister, J., Lundsten, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Bruder, Tanya Marie, Eau Claire; For Respondent: Arndt, Daniel C., Sparta

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests