Summary
The Supreme Court of Nevada held that a modified real-property purchase agreement, executed after the seller repudiated an earlier agreement and demanded a higher price, was unsupported by consideration and unenforceable under the preexisting duty rule. The court rejected the district court’s conclusion that the later agreement effected a novation and held that the original complaint stated viable claims. It directed reinstatement of the complaint and vacatur of the order expunging the notice of lis pendens.
Holdings
- Writ review was warranted because an appeal after final judgment would be inadequate where the property could be transferred before appellate review.
- Zhang adequately alleged an actionable anticipatory breach because Sorichetti's statement that he would not sell under the original agreement unless paid more constituted a clear, positive, and unequivocal repudiation.
- The February 3 agreement increasing the purchase price was unsupported by consideration and did not relieve Sorichetti of his obligations under the February 1 agreement.
- The February 1 agreement was not replaced by the February 3 agreement through novation, and any purported novation remained subject to the preexisting-duty rule.
- The district court manifestly abused its discretion by expunging Zhang's notice of lis pendens because her complaint alleged viable claims concerning title to real property.
Questions Presented
- Whether extraordinary writ review was appropriate despite the availability of an appeal after final judgment.
- Whether Zhang's complaint stated a viable claim based on Sorichetti's alleged anticipatory repudiation of the original purchase agreement.
- Whether the later agreement increasing the purchase price was enforceable or replaced the original agreement by novation when it was unsupported by new consideration.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by expunging Zhang's notice of lis pendens.
- Whether Zhang was entitled to a writ of prohibition preventing factual determinations concerning novation before discovery and a writ of mandamus compelling leave to amend.
Disposition
writ_granted
Cases Cited (15)
- Dayside Inc. v. Dist. Ct., 119 Nev. 404, 75 P.3d 384 (2003)(followed)
- Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 424, 996 P.2d 416 (2000)(followed)
- Kourafas v. Basic Food Flavors, Inc., 120 Nev. ___, 88 P.3d 822 (2004)(followed)
- Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 637 P.2d 534 (1981)(followed)
- Covington Bros. v. Valley Plastering, Inc., 93 Nev. 355, 566 P.2d 814 (1977)(followed)
- Bernard v. Rockhill Dev. Co., 103 Nev. 132, 734 P.2d 1238 (1987)(followed)
- County of Clark v. Bonanza No. 1, 96 Nev. 643, 615 P.2d 939 (1980)(followed)
- Walden v. Backus, 81 Nev. 634, 408 P.2d 712 (1965)(followed)
- Jacobson v. Stern, 96 Nev. 56, 605 P.2d 198 (1980)(followed)
- United Fire Ins. Co. v. McClelland, 105 Nev. 504, 780 P.2d 193 (1989)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…