The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Mary and Walter Stefanovicz (Ds), a married couple, got a farm as tenants in common. Botticello (P) was interested in buying and was told that their asking price was $100,000. P visited the farm and countered at $75,000. Mary said no way, but P and Walter eventually agreed upon $85,000 for a lease with an option to purchase, and during negotiations Mary stated she would not sell for less. The agreement was drawn up by Walter’s attorney and modified by P’s. Neither P nor his attorney nor Walter’s attorney were aware that Walter did not own the property outright. Walter never represented to P or P’s attorney or to his attorney that he was acting for his wife, Mary or as her agent. Mary’s part ownership was discovered when a third party sought an easement. P took possession after the execution of the lease and option to purchase. After 3 years and substantial improvements, P exercised the option to purchase. Ds refused to honor the agreement. P sought specific performance and damages. The trial court awarded specific performance. D appealed claiming that Mary was never party to the agreement and thus it cannot be enforced against her. The trial court had found that Walter had acted as her authorized agent and thus the agreement was binding upon her.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.