- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
CLARK v. DIXON
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants seeking to declare null an option purportedly granted by the grandfather and father of the defendants in favor of Beaula Dixon. The basis for the suit was that the option was for an indefinite period of time, rendering it invalid. Defendants answered, asserting the option's validity and expressing their desire to exercise it. After a trial on the merits, the trial court declared the option invalid without assigning written reasons. Defendants appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an option to purchase immovable property that does not specify a definite time period for its exercise is valid under Louisiana law.
- Whether the absence of a stipulated time period renders the option a nudum pactum (naked promise) and thus unenforceable.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiffs' Arguments
- The option is invalid because it violates LSA-C.C. Article 2462, which requires definite terms including a stipulated time for the exercise of an option to sell immovable property.
- The option was granted for an indefinite period, which the plaintiffs contend renders it null and void.
Defendants' Arguments
- Defendants rely on Price v. Town of Ruston, arguing that the option is valid even without a stipulated time limit for its exercise.
- They assert the option should be enforced as it was validly granted and they wish to exercise it.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bristo v. Christine Oil Gas Co., 139 La. 312, 71 So. 521 | Held that an option for an indefinite term is a nudum pactum and invalid; state policy favors keeping property in commerce. | The court adopted this precedent to support invalidating the indefinite option at issue. |
| Price v. Town of Ruston, 171 La. 985, 132 So. 653 | Held that an option without a stipulated time limit was not necessarily null. | The court distinguished this case based on its peculiar facts and declined to follow it as the controlling rule. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the language of LSA-C.C. Article 2462, which requires a reciprocal consent as to the thing, price, and terms, including a stipulated time for exercising an option to sell immovable property. The court found the option at issue lacked a definite time period, rendering it indefinite. Citing Bristo v. Christine Oil Gas Co., the court emphasized that an option for an indefinite term is a naked promise (nudum pactum) and unenforceable, reinforcing the state's policy to keep property in commerce. Although defendants cited Price v. Town of Ruston to argue otherwise, the court viewed that decision as factually distinct and not controlling. The court reasoned that allowing an indefinite option would unfairly advantage the option holder, permitting them to delay exercising the option potentially for years to benefit from property value appreciation. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment invalidating the option.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment declaring the option to purchase land invalid due to its indefinite term.
Implications: The decision directly affects the parties by denying enforcement of the option held by Beaula Dixon. The ruling reinforces the legal principle that options for immovable property must specify a definite time for exercise, supporting state policy to maintain property liquidity. No new precedent was established beyond affirming existing law.
SAVOY, Judge.
This is a suit filed by plaintiffs against defendants to declare a purported option granted by the grandfather and father of defendants in favor of Beaula Dixon null for the reason that the option was for an indefinite period of time. Defendants answered the suit alleging the option to be valid and expressing a desire to exercise same.
After a trial on the merits, the trial judge, without assigning written reasons, declared the option to be invalid. Defendants have appealed to this Court.
The instrument at issue reads as follows:
"Jan. 11, 1960. I agree to sell to Beaula M. Dixon all the land north of the parish road in the 40 acre tract which she now lives in. Price of $100.00 per acre. To be surveyed later and determine amount of land.
"$50.00 paid on this day.
s/Beaula M. Dixon, Buyer
s/W. L. Clark, Seller"
The matter is as submitted by counsel on briefs. Counsel for plaintiffs contend that the option is invalid for the reason that it is contrary to LSA-C.C. Article 2462 which provides:
"A promise to sell, when there exists a reciprocal consent of both parties as to the thing, the price and terms, and which, if it relates to immovables, is in writing, so far amounts to a sale, as to give either party the right to enforce specific performance of same.
"One may purchase the right, or option to accept or reject, within a stipulated time, an offer to promise to sell, after the purchase of such option, for any consideration therein stipulated, such offer, or promise cannot be withdrawn before the time agreed upon; and should it be accepted within the time stipulated, the contract or agreement to sell, evidenced by such promise and acceptance, may be specifically enforced by either party."
In Bristo v. Christine Oil Gas Co., 139 La. 312, 71 So. 521, our State Supreme Court held that an option for an indefinite term was a nudum pactum. The Court stated that the policy of this state is to keep property in commerce.
In the instant case the option grants defendant, Beaula Miller Dixon, the right to purchase 40 acres at $100.00 an acre for a consideration of $50.00. The owner at the time the option was granted died prior to the recordation of the option in 1971, and the heirs, plaintiffs herein, were placed in possession of said property as owners in 1970.
Defendants rely on the case of Price v. Town of Ruston, 171 La. 985, 132 So. 653. It is true that Justice O'Niell, author of the opinion, stated that there was no merit that the option was null for want of a stipulation limiting the time within which it might be exercised; however, we believe the case was decided on its peculiar facts, and the better rule is that which is stated by Justice O'Niell in Bristo, supra.
We are of the opinion that the rule of law as set forth in LSA-C.C. Art. 2462, to the effect that there must be a definite time set forth in the option, is the correct one. To hold otherwise would be to give all of the advantage to the one in whose favor the option was granted. He could wait many years before determining whether to exercise the option. He could wait and see if the property involved would increase in value before exercising his option.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court is affirmed at appellants' costs.
Affirmed.
Alert