## Facts

- Wilford and Gloria Neves (buyers) entered a uniform real estate contract on April 19, 1977, to purchase a residence from Bruce and Shonnie Wright (sellers).
- The deal was structured as an executory land-sale contract: the Neveses would make installment payments over time, and the Wrights would convey the deed after the full purchase price plus interest was paid.
- On May 31, 1977, the parties signed a corrected contract and an escrow agreement; the Wrights executed a warranty deed and placed it in escrow for delivery upon full payment.
- Eight days before the first contract was signed (April 11, 1977), the Wrights had conveyed their interest in the property by quitclaim deed to Bruce Wright’s parents, and that deed was recorded.
- Bruce Wright testified that the transfer to his parents was made to protect the property from his creditors during a dispute involving Western General Dairies and that there was an oral understanding the parents would reconvey the property once the dispute was resolved.
- After the Neveses moved in, they learned of the prior quitclaim deed. In February 1978, they wrote the Wrights renouncing the sale as “fraudulent and void,” vacated the property, and demanded return of all amounts paid.
- The Neveses sued seeking rescission and restitution based on fraud and breach of contract; the Wrights counterclaimed for damages.
- Before trial, the creditor dispute was dismissed (June 1978), and Bruce Wright’s parents reconveyed title to the Wrights (December 1978).
- The trial court ruled for the Neveses, ordering rescission and restitution of amounts paid (minus a deduction for reasonable rental value during occupancy) and dismissed the Wrights’ counterclaim.
- The Wrights appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether sellers’ lack of record title at the time an executory real estate contract was executed, and nondisclosure of a prior conveyance to relatives, constituted fraud or otherwise justified rescission when sellers were able to reacquire and convey good title.
2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed the sellers’ counterclaim for damages after granting rescission.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court reversed the judgment granting rescission and restitution to the Neveses.
- The court held that the Neveses were not entitled to rescission merely because the Wrights did not hold record title at contract formation and did not disclose the prior quitclaim deed.
- The court concluded the record did not establish actionable fraud warranting rescission, given the structure of the transaction (including the escrowed deed) and the absence of a showing that the Wrights could not deliver good title when required.
- The court remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of the Wrights’ counterclaim.

## Legal Principles

- Under Utah law governing executory land-sale contracts (including uniform real estate contracts), a vendor generally is not required to have marketable title during the executory period, so long as the vendor can convey good title at the time the deed must be delivered.
- A temporary lack of record title during the payment period does not, by itself, amount to fraud or justify rescission; rescission requires more than the bare fact of an earlier conveyance.
- Rescission may be available where the seller’s conduct or circumstances show an inability or unwillingness to provide the agreed title when performance is due, or where a material misrepresentation is shown to have caused legally significant harm.
- Placing a warranty deed in escrow for delivery upon completion of payments is consistent with an intent to perform an executory contract, and it weighs against treating a temporary title defect as a basis for rescission absent proof the buyer’s right to receive title was materially jeopardized.
- When a rescission judgment is reversed, related rulings dependent on rescission—such as dismissal of the seller’s contract-damages counterclaim—must also be revisited on remand.

## Conclusion

Neves v. Wright holds that buyers under a uniform real estate (installment) contract cannot rescind solely because the sellers lacked record title when the contract was made and did not disclose a prior transfer, where the sellers could reacquire and convey good title when the deed was due; the Utah Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s rescission and restitution award and remanded, including for consideration of the sellers’ counterclaim.


Neves v. Wright, 638 P.2d 1195 (1981)