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

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

The buyer (P) and seller (D) entered a contract for the sale of D's one-family house. The property contained a swimming pool and a fence, which were violative of certain restrictive covenants. Further, the house lacked a certificate of occupancy from the local architectural control committee. Based on these facts, P notified D prior to the closing date that the title was unmarketable, and demanded a return of P's deposit. The trial court held that P had notified D of the defects prior to the closing date, that D had taken no steps to remedy them, and that P was entitled to a return of the deposit. On appeal, the Appellate Division found that P's letter rejecting title failed to specify the defects upon which it was based, and that specific objections were not raised until nearly six weeks after the date set for closing. The Appellate Division further found that the defects complained of would have been curable upon proper notice. P appeals the Appellate Division's reversal of the trial court.

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

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