## Facts

- In 1981, John R. Mohrlang (buyer/plaintiff) agreed in a written purchase agreement to buy an unimproved lot in a proposed “Draper Subdivision” in Nebraska from Larry Draper (seller/defendant) for $14,875.   
- The price terms: $500 earnest money on signing, $2,475 at closing (set for January 1, 1982), and the $11,900 balance in monthly installments with interest and a five‑year balloon payment.   
- The contract required Draper, at his own expense, to (1) obtain release of a right‑of‑way easement across the lot, (2) terminate/relocate a buried gas line owned by Kansas‑Nebraska Natural Gas Company, and (3) pay for paving the abutting street.   
- The gas line crossed the lot diagonally for about 200 feet in a 33‑foot‑wide easement, rendering the lot unusable for Mohrlang’s planned solar home unless moved.   
- After signing the contract, Draper obtained a July 7 estimate showing the relocation cost for the gas line would be about $10,050—far higher than he had anticipated; he had not researched these costs before contracting.   
- Draper failed to relocate the gas line or pave the street and refused to close the sale, citing the unexpectedly high relocation/paving costs and resulting hardship.   
- Mohrlang secured financing, hired an architectural firm, and began plans for a solar home that depended on the southern exposure of this specific lot; repeated attempts through his realtor to schedule closing were unsuccessful.   
- Mohrlang sued Draper seeking specific performance of the real estate contract.   
- The trial court denied specific performance to Mohrlang but entered a money judgment (damages) against Draper; the court did not grant Draper rescission. Draper appealed the damage award, and Mohrlang cross‑appealed the denial of specific performance.   

## Issues

1. Whether a seller of real property may avoid specific performance of a valid, written real estate contract on the ground that performance has become much more expensive than anticipated, absent fraud, misrepresentation, or mutual mistake.  
2. Whether the increased cost of relocating a gas line and paving a street, discovered after execution of the contract, constitutes the type of hardship or mistake that justifies denying specific performance and limiting the buyer to damages.  
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying the buyer’s request for specific performance and instead awarding only money damages, and whether that damage award against the seller was proper.  

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court held that mere increase in the cost or burden of performance, standing alone, does not excuse a seller from performing a valid real estate contract where the risk of such expense was assumed and there is no fraud, misrepresentation, or mutual mistake.   
- The court concluded that Draper’s failure to investigate the cost of removing the gas line and paving the street before contracting did not amount to a legal ground to avoid specific performance; any mistake was unilateral and related to cost, a risk properly borne by the seller.   
- The court determined that specific performance was the appropriate remedy for Mohrlang because the contract concerned a unique parcel of real property and there was no equitable bar to enforcement.   
- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment insofar as it denied specific performance and remanded with directions to enter a decree compelling Draper to specifically perform the contract in accordance with its terms (and to adjust any incidental matters consistent with specific performance).   
- As a result, Draper’s appeal from the money judgment and Mohrlang’s cross‑appeal from the denial of specific performance were resolved by ordering specific performance in favor of Mohrlang and modifying the trial court’s disposition accordingly.   

## Legal Principles

- A valid, definite, and certain contract for the sale of real estate is specifically enforceable in equity absent valid defenses such as fraud, misrepresentation, or mutual mistake.   
- Unilateral mistake as to the cost or difficulty of performance, especially when arising from a party’s own failure to investigate, ordinarily does not justify rescission or denial of specific performance. The mistaken party bears the risk of such error.   
- Hardship in performance that merely increases expense, without rendering performance impossible or unconscionable, is not sufficient to bar specific performance of a land‑sale contract.   
- Land is considered unique; money damages are often inadequate to compensate for breach of a contract to sell a particular parcel, making specific performance an appropriate, often preferred, remedy for the buyer.   
- Courts of equity weigh the circumstances at the time of contracting. A party who voluntarily assumes contractual obligations cannot later rely on predictable or investigable costs to avoid performance.   

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Supreme Court required Draper to specifically perform the real estate contract with Mohrlang, holding that unexpectedly high costs of fulfilling agreed‑upon conditions (removal of an easement and gas line and paving a street) did not excuse performance or justify denying specific performance where the seller had assumed those obligations and any mistake was unilateral and related only to expense.


Mohrlang v. Draper, 365 N.W.2d 443 (Neb. 1985)