Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 11-02-2010

Case Style: Barth P. Walker v. James Buxton

Case Number: CJ-2005-5434

Judge: Daniel L. Owens

Court: District Court, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Garry Hammond, Hammond & Associates, P.L.L.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Andrew Waldon, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Description: Barth P. Walker, now deceased, as trustee of the Barth P. Walker Revocable Trust, and Defendant Jamesw Buxton entered into an agreement regarding the sale of Barth P. Walker's former resident at 1709 Elmhurst to James Buxton. The plaintiff, Diane Walker, Successor Trustee of the Barth P. Walker Revocable Trust, contended that the sales price was $300,000, that James Buxton paid Barth Walker $100,000, and that James Buxton owed Diane Walker, as successor trustee of the Barth P. Walker Revocable Trust, an additional $200,000.00.

Defendants asserted that: (1) the parties entered into a signed, written agreement wherein the agreed upon sales price was $180,000, less the closing costs paid by Seller, (2) the parties never came to any agreement modifying their written contract, and that (3) the closing occurred on November 20, 2003, Barth P. Walker accepted and deposited a check for the full required payment on the home ($173,235.03), and executed a deed confirming that he had received all consideration for which he bargained. Barth P. WAlker, as trustee of the Barth P. Walker Revocable Trust, received a cashier's check based upon a sales price of $180,000, a check which Barth Walker cashed.

James Buxton offered to pay $300,000 under some very specific (non-recourse) financing terms. Documents created by a third-party attorney, even before the closing, confirmed James Buxton's very restricted or limited offer. Prior to the closing, and again months after the closing, Barth Walker did not accept James Buxton's offer to modify the agreement. Instead, the parties completed the closing on November 30, 2003, based upon the October 2003 agreement. The parties never agree on the terms of any post-closing modification.

Lastly, the Defendants objected to the Plaintiff's effort in just the last ten days to insert an entirely new cause of action (Breach of Contract), which specifically was not asserted in Plaintiff's Third Amended Petition. No discovery has been taken on such a claim, nor did the Plaintiff seek leave of Court to reassert it.

Outcome: Defendants' verdict.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case