Supreme Court
White Knight Dev., LLC v. Simmons
- Case number: 23-0868
- Legal category: Contracts
- Subtype: Damages
- Set for oral argument: March 18, 2025
Case Summary
This case concerns whether a seller awarded specific performance of a real estate contract is also entitled to monetary compensation for expenses incurred because of the purchaser’s late performance.
In 2016, Dick and Julie Simmons sold real estate to White Knight Development with a “buy back” agreement requiring the Simmonses to repurchase the property if subdivision residents extended certain deed restrictions by 2018. Residents extended the restrictions in October 2016, and White Knight demanded the Simmonses perform the buy back agreement. They refused, and White Knight sued for specific performance, breach of contract, and fraud in the inducement of a real estate contract. After a bench trial, the trial court found the Simmonses liable for breach of contract and ordered specific performance. It also awarded White Knight $308,136.14 in “actual damages/consequential damages” for expenses incurred between the time the Simmonses should have performed and the trial.
The court of appeals affirmed the order of specific performance but modified the judgment to delete the monetary award to White Knight. It recognized that courts may award compensation incidental to specific performance to account for the delay in performance and adjust the equities between the parties. But here, the court reasoned, nothing indicates that the trial court made the monetary award to adjust the equities, as it spoke only of damages from the breach. The court of appeals thus deleted the award on the ground that White Knight cannot receive both specific performance and damages for the breach.
White Knight petitioned for review. It argues that the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law demonstrate that it made the monetary award to adjust the equities between the parties. Additionally, White Knight argues that the court of appeals improperly invoked a magic-words requirement that prevents warranted incidental compensation because it is labeled as damages. The Supreme Court granted the petition.
Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case.