Stambovsky Vs. Ackley: Case Study
Justin Smith
Stambovsky v. Ackley (Case Brief 3)
Facts
The Plaintiff purchased a house that was known to be possessed by poltergeists. Stamboysky was from New York City and not familiar with local folklore. The sellers were aware that it was haunted and actually reported it through national publication, Reader’s Digest, in 1977 and the local press in 1982.
Procedural History
The Plaintiff, Stambovsky, sued to have the contract canceled. The trial court ruled in favor of Ackley.
Issue
Can the buyer cancel a contract in the situation that there was information that the seller did not inform the buyer of?
Holding
The buyer can cancel the contract to buy the property because the fact of the haunting impairs the value of the contract.
Judgment …show more content…
Echo Consulting Services sued North Conway bank for partial actual eviction. In addition Echo Consulting Services sued for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment as well as for the breach of the lease. These were all ruled against from the Superior Court. Echo Consulting Services argues that the trial court erred by confusing the legal standards for constructive eviction and partial actual eviction and partial actual eviction, finding that locking the street-level access doors did not constitute a partial actual eviction, ruling that there was no constructive eviction and applying the wrong legal standard to determine the quiet enjoyment …show more content…
Holding
The trial court applied the standard for constructive eviction in ruling on the actual eviction claim, but it was an error; however, the court affirms that it was the correct result. As for the case of constructive eviction, the court decided that the evidence in the record was sufficient to support its conclusion. As for the case of breach of quiet enjoyment, the court did not consider Echo’s claim that the bank’s construction activities breached the covenant by depriving Echo of the beneficial use of the premises.
Judgment
Judgment was affirmed the lower court’s decision in the case of constructive or partial actual eviction. Judgment was reversed and remanded the decision in the case of the breach of quiet enjoyment.
Stambovsky v. Ackley (Case Brief 3)
Facts
The Plaintiff purchased a house that was known to be possessed by poltergeists. Stamboysky was from New York City and not familiar with local folklore. The sellers were aware that it was haunted and actually reported it through national publication, Reader’s Digest, in 1977 and the local press in 1982.
Procedural History
The Plaintiff, Stambovsky, sued to have the contract canceled. The trial court ruled in favor of Ackley.
Issue
Can the buyer cancel a contract in the situation that there was information that the seller did not inform the buyer of?
Holding
The buyer can cancel the contract to buy the property because the fact of the haunting impairs the value of the contract.
Judgment …show more content…
Echo Consulting Services sued North Conway bank for partial actual eviction. In addition Echo Consulting Services sued for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment as well as for the breach of the lease. These were all ruled against from the Superior Court. Echo Consulting Services argues that the trial court erred by confusing the legal standards for constructive eviction and partial actual eviction and partial actual eviction, finding that locking the street-level access doors did not constitute a partial actual eviction, ruling that there was no constructive eviction and applying the wrong legal standard to determine the quiet enjoyment …show more content…
Holding
The trial court applied the standard for constructive eviction in ruling on the actual eviction claim, but it was an error; however, the court affirms that it was the correct result. As for the case of constructive eviction, the court decided that the evidence in the record was sufficient to support its conclusion. As for the case of breach of quiet enjoyment, the court did not consider Echo’s claim that the bank’s construction activities breached the covenant by depriving Echo of the beneficial use of the premises.
Judgment
Judgment was affirmed the lower court’s decision in the case of constructive or partial actual eviction. Judgment was reversed and remanded the decision in the case of the breach of quiet enjoyment.