Background
Avis Briggs and her husband, Lee Briggs, agreed in September 2023 to sell their Hope, Arkansas, house and land to Lee’s son, Ricardo Scott. The contract listed a $140,000 price but provided for a $25,000 gift of equity, making Scott’s purchase price $115,000. It called for an “as is” sale and closing by October 19, 2023.
The sale did not close on that date. Scott sought financing, which the loan officer approved by October 27. Although Scott raised concerns about a leaking roof, he testified that he remained willing to buy the property and repair the roof himself. Avis testified that she and Lee instead decided to keep the property. After Lee died, Avis brought an unlawful-detainer action; Scott counterclaimed for specific performance.
The Court’s Holding
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order requiring the parties to complete the sale. The circuit court’s finding that Scott was ready, willing, and able to perform was not clearly erroneous: testimony supported that he had approved financing, remained prepared to purchase the property despite the roof condition, and was prevented from closing when Avis declined to proceed.
The court also refused to consider Avis’s argument that Scott unreasonably delayed seeking equitable relief because she had not raised that argument in the circuit court. Her related contention that Scott materially breached by refusing to close over the roof likewise failed because the circuit court permissibly found that Scott remained ready to perform under the “as is” contract.
Key Takeaways
- A buyer may obtain specific performance when the evidence supports that the buyer remained ready, willing, and able to close.
- A contractual closing date did not, on these facts, automatically invalidate the real-estate contract after the date passed.
- An argument not presented to the circuit court is not preserved for appellate review.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the fact-intensive nature of specific-performance disputes. A buyer’s concern about property condition does not necessarily establish unwillingness to perform when the buyer remains financed and prepared to purchase on the agreed terms.