Legal Opinion

Wineman v. Guilmett

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 29, 1962No. 36268Published

1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.

Quaere: Where an earnest money receipt, signed by a husband and wife as “purchaser,” provides that “If the Purchaser cannot meet the F.H.A. and Loan Agency requirement, Then the earnest money shall be refunded,” should the earnest money be refunded when the loan agency requirement has not been met, solely because the wife commenced an action for divorce (there being no question as to the good faith of the divorce proceeding) , and the purchasers at all times having been ready to proceed with the transaction? (The specific wording of the loan agency requirement relative to marital relationship…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Slack v. MunsonLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1952

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API