The home sellers’ failure to plead the buyers’ anticipatory repudiation of a real estate contract spelled defeat in Kelly v. Orrico, 2014 IL App (2d) 130002, a recent Second District case.
In Kelly, the plaintiffs and defendants – who happened to be friends and neighbors (they lived on the same street) – entered into a real estate contract for plaintiffs to sell their house to the defendants for $1.2M.
When defendants couldn’t sell their home, plaintiffs contracted with another buyer. That buyer defaulted and plaintiffs eventually sold the house for $200,000 less than the contract price with the defendants.
Plaintiff sued defendants for breach of the real estate sales contract seeking to recover the $200,000 difference between the contract price with defendants ($1.2M) and the sales price to the new buyer ($1M).
After a bench trial, the court ruled that the defendants anticipatorily repudiated the real estate sales contract and awarded plaintiffs damages of $150,000 (the $200K difference in the underlying contract price and the sales price to the new buyer minus the $50,000 earnest money plaintiffs kept after the first buyer defaulted). Defendants appealed.
Anticipatory repudiation denotes a “party’s clear manifestation of its intent not to perform under a contract.” The party claiming anticipatory repudiation must show more than an “ambiguous implication” of nonperformance. He has to demonstrate the other party made it very clear he won’t perform. (¶¶ 29-30).
Here, plaintiffs didn’t plead anticipatory repudiation; they only alleged breach of contract. This was a mistake because any proof at trial that the defendants repudiated the contract didn’t help the plaintiffs since an anticipatory repudiation claim was absent from the complaint.
While Code Section 2-616(c) allows a party to amend pleadings at any time (even after judgment) to conform the pleadings to the proofs, plaintiff never filed a motion to amend their complaint to allege anticipatory repudiation.
The plaintiffs didn’t substantively prove anticipatory repudiation either. The Court described anticipatory repudiation as a doctrine not to be taken lightly and where one repudiates a contract – by clearly indicating that he won’t perform – the other party to the contract is excused from performing or he may perform and seek damages for breach.
The Court found that the defendants actions indicated, at most, ambivalence as to whether they would buy plaintiffs’ house.
The plaintiffs offered no proof at trial that defendants tried to terminate the contract or indicated they wouldn’t proceed to closing. Significantly, the Court found that defendants’ failure to respond to plaintiffs’ attorney’s letter declaring defendants in default didn’t constitute a clear manifestation of intent not to buy plaintiffs’ home. (¶30).
This case illustrates anticipatory repudiation’s strict pleading and proof elements.
The case’s procedural lesson here is clear: a litigant should move to amend his pleadings when the proofs at trial don’t match up. Here, it wouldn’t have made a difference though. The Court found defendants’ actions weren’t definite enough to rise to the level of a clear-cut intention not to proceed to closing.