Rea v. Mundy
Alaster Rea and Anita Rea (collectively plaintiffs) and Paul Emerson II entered into a lease agreement with an option to purchase. Perrie Mundy of Re/Max Advantage worked as the real estate agent for both parties. When plaintiffs stopped paying rent after having discovered some problems with the house, Emerson initiated an unlawful detainer proceeding. Plaintiffs never exercised the purchase option. Plaintiffs filed their action against Emerson, Mundy, and Re/Max for various causes of action, including breach of contract, specific performance, and fraud. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court granted the motions for a few reasons, including that plaintiffs could not show that they were entitled to specific performances or damages without having exercised the option to purchase the property. In challenging the trial courts rulings, plaintiffs argue that triable issues of material fact existed as to whether defendants had knowledge of the defects and whether they suffered damages as a result of defendants conduct. Court conclude that, because any remaining factual disputes concerned the option to purchase the property, plaintiffs failure to exercise the option was fatal to their case. Court affirm the judgment.
Comments on Rea v. Mundy