2. Case Citation.
(a) Campbell (Respondent) v. Carr (Appellant)
(b) Court of Appeals of South Carolina
3. Facts
The seller of a property assumed that the buyer’s wife had told her the correct tax assessment value of a property, $54,000. The seller and the buyer executed a contract, but the seller never appeared at the closing and tried to give the deposit of $1000 back to the buyer. The seller felt that the selling price was unfair and then gave a one half interest in the property to her cousin. The actual assessed value of the property was $103,700 for the year it was issued, which the buyer had admitted he most likely had seen this assessment. A real estate appraiser appraised the value of the property at $162,000 when the contract was executed.
4. Issues
The sale of the property is not equitable if sold for $54,000. The fair market value of the property is at least $124,000. The buyer concealed that he seen a current tax value of $103,700 before executing a contract for $54,000. The seller at the current time of entering the contract was taking ten milligrams of Halidol and five milligrams of Cogentin.
5. Decision
Contract was held up in the Richard County court.
6. Holding.
REVERSE: Disagree with the lower court and enter a judgment that is the opposite of or different from the one entered by the lower court.
8. Rationale.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision because they found the value of the of the property three times the amount stated in contract. Carr had a mental illness and was therefore not able to comply with that contract. The Campbells had knowledge of the actual market value of the property and disclosed this from Carr, as she has not seen the property since she was a child. The Appeals Court found that because of low selling price, and mental illness that the contract was inequitable.
9. Optional
The courts decision to reverse the previous courts decision is agreeable. The seller had no idea on...