The dispute escalated in March 2024 when Miller spotted a sale sign outside the property. (AI image)
A Kansas man who received a $150,000 offer for his property has lost a legal battle with his cousin, who claimed he had already agreed to sell her the house and about five acres of land four years earlier. Tiffany Miller said she took responsibility for the property in 2020 after discovering that her cousin, Aaron Harvey, had fallen behind on mortgage payments. the Kansas Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that their verbal arrangement could be enforced Although they never signed a sale agreement.
He said he had simply allowed Miller’s family to use the property in exchange for paying the mortgage and utility bills. Harvey gave a different account. He denied agreeing to sell it.
The dispute began when Harvey decided to sell the property in 2024. The disagreement came to a head in March 2024, when Miller noticed a sale sign outside the Kansas City property, according to the court ruling available on Justia . Harvey later told the court that he had received a $150,000 offer from another buyer, who had also provided a cashier’s cheque. At the time of the trial, around $49,000 remained outstanding on the mortgage. Harvey had owned the property since 2004. He had previously lived there and borrowed $75,000 in 2005 to renovate the house and build an arena for cattle roping. In January 2020, while visiting to feed the horses, Miller came across a letter addressed to Harvey. She testified that it warned the property was at risk of foreclosure and that $9,055.68 was needed to bring the mortgage payments up to date. They agreed on a price of $80,000, according to Miller. With approximately $61,000 still owed on the mortgage, she would take responsibility for the loan and pay Harvey the remaining $19,000 by January 1, 2025. The lender approved the arrangement in May 2020. He pointed out that Miller would pay him only $19,000 directly, even though the property’s value had increased considerably. The judges explained that the agreed purchase price was $80,000, including the mortgage Miller had undertaken to pay. Another issue involved Miller’s bankruptcy filing in 2022.
Because her son, Demetre, kept horses there, miller was familiar with the land. Because the property had subsequently attracted a $150,000 offer, harvey argued that the original arrangement was unfair.
Miller contacted Harvey about the letter and said he indicated that he no longer wanted the property. She admitted that she had not disclosed the property agreement or mortgage payments, describing the omission as an “honest mistake”. By then, Miller and her son had been paying the mortgage and looking after the house for several years. They had also spent money repairing the building and improving the surrounding land. Harvey, however, maintained that he had never agreed to sell it to them. She then offered to buy it. He would then transfer ownership to her. The overdue mortgage amount was not paid as a single upfront payment. Instead, Miller arranged a modification of the loan, which added the overdue amount to the mortgage balance. The appeals court disagreed with that comparison. They also considered the repairs and improvements made over the years. The judges also considered whether an agreement that was never written down could still be enforced. exceptions can apply when someone has already acted substantially on an agreement Although Kansas law generally requires property-sale agreements to be in writing.
Harvey argued that this should prevent her from claiming the property, but the appeals court found that he had not properly raised that defence during the earlier proceedings.
Years of repairs became important to the case
Miller testified that when she first received the keys in January 2020, she found mud, mould and mildew in the basement, along with a sewer smell. Her son began contributing towards the mortgage, utilities and repairs after moving into the property in 2022. Because he had given her access to the mortgage account and allowed her to take possession of the property, however, the trial court found that his actions supported Miller’s account, particularly.
When she told Harvey about the problems, she said he responded, “That’s your deal now. The condition of the house became an important part of the dispute. Miller and her son subsequently carried out extensive work. They repaired plumbing, replaced household appliances, improved fencing and worked on the driveway and cattle arena. They also installed a French drain to prevent water from entering the basement. Harvey argued that he had not been informed about the improvements. In this case, the court found sufficient evidence that Miller had acted on the arrangement by taking possession, arranging the mortgage payments and making significant improvements. The judges also concluded that simply paying her back for the repairs would not adequately compensate her for losing the property she had agreed to buy. You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.