When does a mutual mistake at the time a contract is made provide a ground for rescission?

Contract Rescission

Land Baron Invs. v. Bonnie Springs Family LP (Nev. Supreme Ct. – Sep. 17, 2015)

This case arises from a failed land sale contract. The issue is whether a mutual mistake will provide a ground for rescission where one of the parties bears the risk of mistake.

In 2004, Land Baron Investments, Inc., contracted to purchase land for $17,190,000 from Bonnie Springs Family Limited Partnership and Bonnie Springs Management Company (collectively, Bonnie Springs) for the express purpose of building a subdivision. The property lies next to the Bonnie Springs Ranch, beyond the outskirts of Las Vegas and is surrounded largely by undeveloped land.

Prior to signing the purchase agreement, Land Baron verified that Bonnie Springs had title to the property but did not inquire into water or access rights or do any other due diligence. Land Baron drafted the purchase agreement, which stated that Bonnie Springs would allow Land Baron to use some of its treated wastewater for landscaping, but did not mention access or water rights or make the contract contingent upon its ability to secure access, water, or any other utility necessary for the planned subdivision. Immediately after signing the agreement and while the sale was pending, Land Baron also began listing and relisting the property for sale, first as a single piece of property and then as separate parcels. However, obtaining access and water proved to be difficult, and beginning in December 2004, the parties amended the purchase agreement five times to extend the escrow period, with Land Baron paying a nonrefundable fee of $50,000 for each extension.

The property is flanked by two gravel roads, Los Loros Lane and Gunfighter Lane, both of which overlap or border Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. Clark County informed Land Baron it would not approve either road as access into the proposed subdivision unless the road was widened and paved. After further researching the issue, Land Baron discovered that Gunfighter Lane could not be paved or widened because a right-of-way would not allow it and that Los Loros Lane likewise could not be paved or widened because it was on National Conservation Land and use of that road could constitute a trespass.

In September 2005, Land Baron began a search for water rights for the subject property. An attempt to buy existing water rights from another owner in the area failed because the rights were not in the same water basin. Land Baron was unable to find a viable option for obtaining water rights from nearby water sources and was unable to bring in water by a pipeline from another development. Land Baron asked Bonnie Springs if it would be willing to share its commercial water rights from the Bonnie Springs Ranch, but Bonnie Springs informed Land Baron that it could not allow its commercial water to be used in the residential development. Despite these issues, Land Baron never attempted to amend the language of the agreement with Bonnie Springs to address concerns with access or water.

The parties met in August 2007 to discuss the access and water rights issues. Land Baron informed Bonnie Springs that, because the property would likely need to be sold as a single parcel rather than as individual lots in a subdivision, its value was greatly reduced. Following this meeting, Land Baron failed to make a payment to extend the escrow period through September 2007. On September 26, 2007, Bonnie Springs notified Land Baron that it was in breach and that Bonnie Springs was terminating escrow and keeping the deposits as liquidated damages. The next day, Bonnie Springs notified the title company of Land Baron’s breach and requested that escrow be terminated.

Subsequent negotiations proved unsuccessful, and Land Baron filed a citizen’s complaint with the Clark County Commissioner’s office alleging that there were multiple county code violations on the Bonnie Springs Ranch. The complaints were based on investigations allegedly performed at Bonnie Springs Ranch by individuals it hired to search for code violations. These investigators allegedly found horses that had been electrocuted or infected with West Nile virus; turtles in the petting zoo that were infected with salmonella; licensing issues with the motel and business; code violations with the walkways, handrails, restrooms, shade structures, electrical wiring, and stairways; and other health, waste, and zoning issues. As a result, the county commissioner and multiple state and local regulatory agencies performed a large-scale inspection of the Bonnie Springs Ranch during business hours, when guests and school children were present. Officials from each county office arrived at the ranch in police vehicles that had lights flashing. No violations were found on the Bonnie Springs Ranch.

The same month it filed the citizen’s complaint, Land Baron also filed a complaint against Bonnie Springs in district court, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional misrepresentation and nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation, rescission based on mutual mistake, rescission based on unilateral mistake, rescission based on failure of consideration, and rescission based on fraud in the inducement. All of the claims centered on Land Baron’s difficulty obtaining access and water rights for the subject property. Bonnie Springs counterclaimed for breach of contract, abuse of process, nuisance, fraudulent misrepresentation, intentional interference with contractual relations, and slander of title.

Several summary judgment motions were filed. Of note, Bonnie Springs filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that it had no legal or contractual duty to provide or secure water rights for the property. And Land Baron filed a motion for summary judgment to confirm its right to rescind the contract based on mutual mistake.

The district court granted Bonnie Springs’ motion for summary judgment on the water rights issues. It found that Bonnie Springs had no contractual duty to provide notice of water rights issues or to help secure water rights for the subject property, and that the burden was on Land Baron to secure water rights.

The district court then denied Land Baron’s motion for summary judgment regarding mutual mistake. The court found that there was no mutual mistake because the parties did not know, at the time of the agreement, whether there were sufficient access and water rights to support a subdivision on the property, and it assigned the risk of that mistake to Land Baron. Finally, the district court granted Land Baron’s second summary judgment motion dismissing Bonnie Springs’ intentional interference with contractual relations and fraudulent misrepresentation claims because it found that there were no remaining factual issues. However, it denied the motion as to Bonnie Springs’ counterclaims for breach of contract, abuse of process, nuisance, and slander of title because it found that factual issues remained.

The parties proceeded to trial on Bonnie Springs’ remaining counterclaims for abuse of process and nuisance. Prior to closing arguments, Land Baron made a motion for a directed verdict, arguing that Bonnie Springs had failed to satisfy the elements of each claim and had failed to prove the physical harm necessary to support emotional distress damages under the nuisance claim. The district court denied the motion.

The jury returned a unanimous verdict for Bonnie Springs on its nuisance and abuse of process counterclaims, awarding Bonnie Springs $1,250,000 as compensatory damages for its abuse of process counterclaim and $350,000 as compensatory damages for its nuisance counterclaim. The jury awarded Bonnie Springs an additional $1,512,500 in punitive damages on the abuse of process counterclaim and an additional $762,500 in punitive damages on the nuisance counterclaim. Land Baron appealed

Land Baron’s mutual mistake rescission claim

Land Baron argued that it was entitled to summary judgment on its rescission claim because both Land Baron and Bonnie Springs mistakenly believed there would be sufficient access and water rights for a subdivision on the property, giving rise to a mutual mistake that would render the contract voidable.

The Supreme Court of Nevada explained that it need not determine whether Land Baron and Bonnie Springs shared a mistaken assumption about the certainty of procuring access and water rights because Land Baron bore the risk of mistake, foreclosing any possibility of rescinding the contract based on a mutual mistake. The Court noted that Land Baron was a sophisticated and experienced land buyer and developer, and in this instance, it contracted to purchase property that was well beyond the outskirts of Las Vegas, surrounded by land that was mostly undeveloped, flanked by dirt roads, and only a few minutes away from Red Rock Canyon, a well-known conservation area. Land Baron also drafted the contract and its amendments. Yet, despite including a section for contingencies, Land Baron failed to include language to address the possibilities that a narrow gravel road may not provide sufficient access to a subdivision, or that water may not be available to support a neighborhood complete with large homes and horse pastures. The Court believed that this was a significant oversight for this type of project, and it could be fairly inferred that by failing to provide for such contingencies, Land Baron assumed the risk of mistake as to these issues.

Land Baron argued that Bonnie Springs assured it that water, at least, would not be a problem. However, Land Baron pointed to no evidence (as opposed to Land Baron’s assertions) that Bonnie Springs ever actually made such a statement and thus failed to show a genuine issue of material fact. The Court noted that the record indicated that Land Baron entered into the contract without conducting any due diligence, hoping that it could procure water, access, and any other utility necessary to obtain development permits. The Court explained that a hope that things will work out is not the same as a reasonable belief in a set of facts, and Land Baron assumed the risk by proceeding with the contract despite having limited knowledge of the actual conditions as to water and access. Thus, the Court found that rescission was not appropriate on grounds of mutual mistake and that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on Land Baron’s rescission claims.

Land Baron argued that Bonnie Springs misrepresented, either intentionally or negligently, Land Baron’s ability to obtain access or water rights. Specifically, it alleged that Bonnie Springs knew Los Loros Lane was on BLM land and had previously dealt with the BLM regarding land use issues on the surrounding property, and that Bonnie Springs knew Land Baron would not be able to get water rights for the subdivision and had represented to Land Baron that Bonnie Springs would provide water. It asserted that genuine issues of material fact remain and that the district court erred in dismissing these claims on summary judgment.

The Court noted that to establish a claim for either intentional or negligent misrepresentation, Land Baron must show that Bonnie Springs supplied Land Baron with false information. Summary judgment is appropriate on either of these claims if Land Baron had not provided evidence of this essential element. The Court explained that Land Baron had provided no evidence that Bonnie Springs ever represented that there would be no impediment to gaining access for a subdivision via either Los Loros or Gunfighter Lanes, or that Bonnie Springs had stated that it would supply the property with water. Because the record did not indicate that Bonnie Springs ever misrepresented any facts regarding access or water to Land Baron, the Court found that summary judgment was appropriate on the misrepresentation claims.

Land Baron’s nondisclosure claim

Land Baron next argued that Bonnie Springs knew, and did not disclose, that the property could not be supplied with adequate water and that both Los Loros and Gunfighter Lanes were on BLM land, giving rise to a claim for nondisclosure.

The Court noted that the record made clear that Land Baron could have, and did, discover the facts surrounding the difficulty or impossibility of obtaining sufficient water and access for a subdivision on the property. Those defects arose from government regulations, were public knowledge, and were available to anyone upon inquiry. Thus, even if Bonnie Springs had known about these facts and not disclosed them, there would still be no viable nondisclosure claim because the facts were discoverable and Land Baron had an equal opportunity to discover, and did discover, those facts before closing. The Court also noted that the record showed that Bonnie Springs was not aware, prior to signing the contract, that Land Baron would be unable to obtain water rights or that neither Los Loros Lane nor Gunfighter Lane would provide suitable access. Moreover, water rights are public information that can be accessed through the Nevada District of Water Resources’ (NDWR) website, and Black testified that Land Baron, through its engineering firm, was in the best position to know how much water was going to be needed for the proposed subdivision and whether it would be possible to procure that amount of water. Also, Land Baron was aware that it would need to obtain access approval across EBLM land, as was evidenced by its August 2006 request for permission from Clark County to request a right- of-way across BLM land.

Thus, the Court concluded that Bonnie Springs could not be liable for nondisclosure regarding water rights or access. Accordingly, the Court concluded that summary judgment was appropriate as a matter of law on Land Baron’s nondisclosure claim.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *