Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

WILSON v. ROMEOS

LESINSKI, C.J.

This Court's original opinion in this case is reported at 18 Mich. App. 232. For the purposes of this opinion, an abbreviated statement of facts will suffice.

Plaintiffs Ocie and Willie Wilson sought specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate owned by defendants Sotirios and Muriel Romeos. After an unfortunate history of litigation, this Court affirmed the trial court's decree granting specific performance. This case is on remand from the Supreme Court pursuant to its order of March 19, 1970, 383 Mich. 773, that we pass upon the issue of whether plaintiffs have proved their right to specific performance by the introduction of sufficient evidence of tender or ability to perform. We affirm our prior decision in this case.

The lower court record is replete with testimony of plaintiffs' ability to perform their part of the agreement. Defendants chose not to defend on this issue, offer proofs, or cross-examine plaintiffs' witnesses. The trial court's finding of fact that plaintiffs were, at all times, ready, willing, and able to perform is supported by sufficient and competent evidence. This Court will not disturb such findings of fact, unless clearly erroneous. GCR 1963, 517.1; Burke v. Gaukler Storage Co. (1968), 13 Mich. App. 536.

All concurred.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WILSON v. ROMEOS
(Dec 10, 1970)