Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Contracts-Real Estate

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//March 4, 2024//

Contracts-Real Estate

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//March 4, 2024//

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: D Kayseri LLC – c/o Arda Yanik v. 510 Main Street LLC – c/o Mary Wolske

Case No.: 2022AP002220

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Gill, JJ.

Focus: Contracts-Real Estate

D Kayseri LLC, represented by Arda Yanik, appealed a summary judgment that denied its claim for specific performance of a real estate purchase contract for a property owned by 510 Main Street LLC, whose sole member is Mary Wolske. The circuit court had granted summary judgment to Mary Wolske, concluding that no legally enforceable real estate contract existed between the parties due to the absence of a written conveyance that satisfied the statute of frauds (WIS. STAT. § 706.02) and that mutual consent to a legally binding real estate contract could not be proven by Yanik. Therefore, Yanik could not claim equitable relief under WIS. STAT. § 706.04.

The case background involves negotiations between Yanik and William Wolske for the purchase of the property, during which a leaseback arrangement for William, who operated his law office from the property, was a key issue. Despite reaching what Yanik claimed to be a “finalized” agreement, none of the relevant documents were signed by either party, leading to the dispute after William’s death.

The appeals court affirmed the circuit court’s decision, emphasizing that the parties did not reach an agreement on all material aspects of the transaction, as evidenced by the lack of signed documents by either party. Furthermore, the court found that the March correspondence, including various unsigned documents related to the transaction, did not satisfy the statute of frauds or demonstrate mutual consent for the transaction. Consequently, Yanik’s claim for equitable relief under WIS. STAT. § 706.04 was also denied, as he could not prove all the elements of the transaction were clearly and satisfactorily established, particularly mutual consent to the transaction.

Affirmed.

Decided 02/27/24

 Full Text

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests