Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970). Second, Gordon Ranch asserts that Winecup defaulted under Paragraph 6(c) of the October Agreement by refusing to deliver the Property free of all material adverse changes. (Resp. The Winecup Gamble is a member of the Stewardship Alliance of Northeast Elko (SANE). In case of any confusion, feel free to reach out to us.Leave your message here. Co. v. Special Serv. Page … The Court agrees as well. The sheer magnitude of the ranch, at nearly one million acres, can be seen in its size at roughly 58 miles from east to west and 32 miles from north to south. Termination under Section 8 is applicable only where a party has failed to meet a material obligation under the Agreement. Lastly, in pertinent part, Gordon Ranch agreed to waive "its right to terminate the Agreement under the Buyer's contingencies set forth in Section 6 of the [October] Agreement," and agreed that execution of the Amendment would constitute delivery of its Notice to Proceed. Nor was the termination proper under Section 8 of the October Agreement, which was the Section cited by Gordon Ranch in its notice of default dated March 2, 2017. Summ. . The Amendment further provided: "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the [October] Agreement, the Earnest Money, as increased by the Additional Earnest Money, shall be nonrefundable under all circumstances other than a default by Seller." There was no breach of the Agreement in this case; there was simply a no-fault termination based on a casualty event. 26. This is not a case where one party failed to perform some clear material obligation imposed by a contract. 36, 37) is GRANTED. Under that Section, Winecup had the express option not to cure the alleged material adverse change, and thus could not have breached the Agreement by exercising that option. 33; Mot. (3:17-cv-157 Compl. However, material which is properly submitted as part of the complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss." "When the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial." (Amendment ¶ 3, ECF No. Or hiding from Monday. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). 1989). Like unique and one-of-a-kind, the term visionary is misapplied all too often. The amendment uses broad categorical language that purportedly made the earnest money non-refundable in almost all circumstances. Community See All. . See id. See Matsushita Elec. . 497 check-ins. & Constructors Inc., 880 F.2d 219, 221 (9th Cir. This offering represents a rare opportunity to own one of the most historic large-scale ranches available in the Nation today – it is a solid and profitable way to expand or make a grand entrance into an admired and important industry. Some of my best friends never say a word to me. 35, 45) are GRANTED. Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Mares are a... llowed. Hard to tell. 35, 45. Margrave, 878 P.2d at 293; see Bielar v. Washoe Health Sys., Inc., 306 P.3d 360, 364 (Nev. 2013) ("[E]very word [in a contract] must be given effect if at all possible.") On March 16, Gordon Ranch removed Winecup's state-court case to this Court. If Gordon Ranch opted to complete the purchase, it would not receive an abatement of the purchase price. Again, this was not a breach, precisely for the reasons given in Winecup's response to Gordon Ranch's motion. Notably, a seller in Winecup's shoes, faced with a buyer's request to postpone the closing date, might typically bargain for an increase of the earnest money, as well as a contemporaneous agreement that the earnest money be immediately released to the seller, in exchange for the extension. (8) Operating as usual. Section 14 has a few layers, the first of which concerns liabilities to third parties arising during the escrow period. at §§ 2, 3.). Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature. First, Gordon Ranch can go through with the purchase at full price and lay claim to any available insurance proceeds. The top 100 private landowners in total own about 40 million acres, or 2 percent of the land in the U.S., according to the Bloomberg report. On March 13, Gordon Ranch filed an essentially identical action in federal court. It is sufficient that "the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial." Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 480 (9th Cir. 1990). ), On October 18, 2016, Gordon Ranch LP ("Gordon Ranch") and Winecup Gamble, Inc. ("Winecup") entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the conveyance of real property in Elko County, Nevada ("the October Agreement"). Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Elec. Lastly, the risk-of-loss scheme established by Section 14, with its internal logic, strongly militates against a finding that those provisions could be modified by anything less than an explicit reference. 09/25/2020 . See Ringle v. Bruton, 86 P.3d 1032, 1037 (Nev. 2004) (holding that parol evidence may be considered to resolve ambiguity and determine the parties' intent). Instead, the opposition must go beyond the assertions and allegations of the pleadings and set forth specific facts by producing competent evidence that shows a genuine issue for trial. 1994). Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: "[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." The Winecup Gamble Ranch is located in the northeast corner of Nevada. Section 14 of the October Agreement contains a "contrary" provision, stating that Gordon Ranch may terminate the Agreement and get its earnest money back should Winecup elect not to restore the Property after a casualty event. Section 14 sets up a detailed scheme for apportioning the risk of loss, while the Amendment's sweeping, non-specific language broadly purports to modify "anything to the contrary" in the October Agreement. contains alphabet), UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. Here there is a contract which expressly and unambiguously delineates the parties' rights and obligations in the event of any loss, damage, or liability to third parties. 5,551 people follow this. 2:10-cv-02169, 2013 WL 6118622, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2013) (Gordon, J. Must be able to shoe own horses. However, the Court finds that neither party defaulted with respect to any material obligation in the Agreement. Gordon Ranch filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings; Winecup Gamble filed its motion for summary judgment. We are so incredibly thankful that Patrick Bates and David Packer of Bates Land Consortium, Inc chose us to produce this mammoth of a marketing video. But the Winecup Gamble ranch (once owned by actor Jimmy Stewart) reportedly encompasses 247,500 acres. As with any organization, it takes great people to make it successful and the Winecup Gamble Ranch is no exception. at ¶ 9.). 36-3 ("Given the damage to the Property and the Seller's inability to even assess the full damage for months, my client has the right to terminate . About See All. Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble in 2016. www.winecupgambleranch.com. Under the October Agreement, Gordon Ranch was to purchase the Property from Winecup, and the sale was to close on January 12, 2017. www.winecupgambleranch.com. Therefore, the Court finds that in executing the Amendment, it was not the parties' intent to modify the risk-of-loss provisions of Section 14 of the October Agreement. Page … Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distribs., Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. If you searching to test Where To Gamble On Sports And Winecup Gamble Ranch Lawsuit price. R. Civ. Accordingly, it is axiomatic that a contractual amendment can only modify the preexisting contract to the extent the parties actually intended to do so. Pursuant to the Agreement, Gordon Ranch placed a total of $5 million in escrow as earnest money, in anticipation of a closing date "on or before April 15, 2017." (citation omitted). Moreover, "a court should not interpret a contract so as to make meaningless its provisions." While the ranch has 247,000 deeded acres, Rogers … R. Civ. Accordingly, in executing the Amendment, Gordon Ranch voluntarily abandoned its right to back out of the purchase based on a failure of any of the conditions precedent listed in Section 6. Property Name: Winecup Gamble Inc Hunt Group:075 Species: Elk No warranty is made by the Nevada Department of Wildlife as2 to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the data for individual use or aggregate use with other data. website … 1989) (reviewing the district court's interpretation of a contract de novo).2 "A contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation." This site was designed with the .com. Get Directions (775) 472-8000. WINECUP GAMBLE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, The Nevada Supreme Court has stated that "[c]ontract interpretation strives to discern and give effect to the parties' intended meaning." But this would have a substantial impact on the apportionment of the risk of loss, effectively shifting a significant share of the risk to Gordon Ranch. The ranch’s borders are situated approximately 1.5 hours south of Twin Falls, Idaho and 2.5 hours west of Salt Lake City, Utah. 1 Winecup Rd (1,930.56 mi) Montello, NV 89835. The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters. Id. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellant. Under the Amendment, the closing date was extended from January 12 to April 15, 2017. Contact Winecup Gamble Ranch on Messenger . "Generally, a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. We at ranchworldads.com are working every day to be your Ranch Classifieds, and the very best place for you to buy or sell Quarter Horses, Paint Horses, Ranch Horses, Rope Horses, Rodeo Horses, Barrel Horses, Cutting Horses, Reining Horses, Cow Horses, not to mention Alfalfa Hay, Timothy Hay, Bermuda Hay, Cattle, Cattle Ranches, Horse Ranches, or Sell a livestock Brand, or just find a Ranch Job. First, under the October Agreement, Winecup bore the risk of loss prior to the close of escrow, and the Amendment did not address nor expressly purport to reapportion the risk of loss. 2019) Otherwise, if the district court considers materials outside of the pleadings, the motion to dismiss is converted into a motion for summary judgment. Must be able to rope. For example, Gordon Ranch could terminate the October Agreement and get a refund of the earnest money (1) at any time prior to Gordon Ranch's issuance of a Notice to Proceed (Id. On December 21, 2016, the parties entered into an Amendment, modifying the October Agreement. See Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. Community See All. The Winecup Gamble Ranch is a working cattle ranch in northeast Nevada. On May 23, the Court consolidated the two cases under the above-entitled action. Winecup Gamble Ranch – No Longer Available Encompassing 948,380 Acres of Land in Northeastern Elko County, Nevada. In this regard, Winecup's position is straightforward: The Amendment provides that "[n]otwithstanding anything to the contrary in the [October] Agreement, the Earnest Money, as increased by the Additional Earnest Money, shall be nonrefundable under all circumstances other than a default by Seller." at 255. The language of the Amendment does not suggest—and neither party argues—that the Amendment was intended in any way to modify the underlying conditional nature or effect of the risk-of-loss scheme. The parties have also filed two Motions to Seal. Gordon Ranch agreed to place $1 million in escrow as earnest money. He thinks of his job as trying to meet a three-legged stool of objectives. at ¶ 37. Co. v. Coast Converters, 339 P.3d 1281, 1285 (Nev. 2014). The ranch is blessed with an abundance of pristine water in the form of hundreds of natural springs, multiple creeks and two large reservoirs. It cannot be said that Winecup violated the Agreement merely by exercising its right not to restore the Property—a right expressly granted by the Agreement. Winecup informed Gordon Ranch that it would "proceed in its ranch operations and future sale efforts without further obligation to [Gordon Ranch]," and demanded that Gordon Ranch immediately instruct the title company to release the earnest money to Winecup. The relevant documents have already been filed under seal, and no further action is required of the Clerk of the Court. Click here to remove this judgment from your profile. 1986). Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. But if the evidence of the nonmoving party is merely colorable or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. The district court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings, thus denying the motion for summary judgment without considering the merits of that motion; it also found that neither party was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. Further, NRS 113.040(a), which contains Nevada's default risk-of-loss rules and which Gordon Ranch relies on for support, has no relevance to this dispute. P. 56(e); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324. "Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." One such condition provides that "Buyer's obligation to close the purchase of the Property is expressly conditioned upon there having been no material adverse change in the physical condition of the Property following the issuance of Buyer's Notice to Proceed (as defined in Subparagraph 6(d))." (Id. And given that the alleged material adverse change was caused by a casualty event, both parties' rights and options are plainly spelled out in Section 14. (See id. J., ECF No. Here, following the flood, Winecup indicated to Gordon Ranch that it may elect not to repair the flood damage or rebuild certain lost infrastructure on the Property. The subject property, commonly known as the Winecup Gamble Ranch ("the Property"), comprises approximately 247,500 deeded acres, rights to federal grazing permits covering approximately 558,080 acres, and Nevada state grazing rights covering approximately 142,800 acres. ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge, This is a consolidated action for declaratory relief arising from a contract for the sale of real property. Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1555 n. 19 (citation omitted). at ¶¶ 33-35.) (October Agreement ¶ 14.) About See All. at ¶ 39.) The ranch encompasses a million acres of high desert country spanning from 4,000 to 8,500 feet in elevation. ), On March 9, 2017, the same day of its written response to Gordon Ranch's notice of default, Winecup filed a declaratory relief action in the Fourth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Elko County. 514 check-ins. Winecup Gamble Ranch. Notably, facts are only viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party where there is a genuine dispute about those facts. Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Applicant must bring 5-7 head of own horses. 1 at 62. Section 6 is merely a collection of conditions precedent, the failure of which would excuse Gordon Ranch's non-performance. Having decided that the Agreement was terminated based on a casualty event pursuant to Section 14 of the October Agreement, and that neither party breached the Agreement, the Court now turns to the question of whether the Amendment was sufficient to modify Section 14 such that Gordon Ranch would not be entitled to a refund of the earnest money under the circumstances presented here. 1 Winecup Rd (1,930.56 mi) Montello, NV 89835. Cattle ranch located in Northeastern Nevada, where our goal is to provide a healthy and wholesome beef product to the market and consumer. (3:17-cv-157 March 9 Letter, ECF No. Winecup merely argues that Gordon Ranch's conditional option to terminate the Agreement with a refund, became a conditional option to terminate without a refund. Get 1 point on adding a valid citation to this judgment. First, the October Agreement provides that the foregoing warranty was "true and correct on the date hereof, will be true and correct as of the date of Close of Escrow, and shall survive the Close of Escrow for two years." By clicking on this tab, you are expressly stating that you were one of the attorneys appearing in this matter. 1.) at ¶ 4.). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. As … P. 12(c). Buy Unlawful Internet Gambling Act Of 2006 And Winecup Gamble Ranch Lawsuit Unlawful Internet Gambling Act Of 2006 And Winecup Gamble Ranch Lawsuit Reviews : Yo The Winecup Gamble Ranch is a working cattle ranch in northeast Nevada. Winecup Gamble Ranch; Cattle ranch located in Northeastern Nevada, where our goal is to provide a healthy and wholesome beef product to the market and consumer. In contract interpretation, "[e]very word must be given effect if at all possible." In its reply, Winecup argued that it had no contractual obligation to repair any damage to the Property, and thus did not breach the Agreement by indicating it may opt not to make certain repairs. Winecup further asserted that, pursuant to the Amendment, the earnest money was nonrefundable under any circumstances. Sprawling across nearly a mi... See More. Reading the parties' agreement as a whole, it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation. at 249-50. If the moving party meets its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the opposing party to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Get Directions (775) 472-8000. At nearly a million acres, the Winecup Gamble Ranch, a mountainous Nevada spread hard up against the Utah border, puts Rhode Island to shame. On February 28, Clay Worden, representative of Winecup, emailed D.R. Alternatively, Gordon Ranch can terminate the Agreement and receive a refund of the earnest money. Therefore, if Winecup had, for example, refused to resolve the claims of Union Pacific that arose from the flood, that action may well have constituted a breach or anticipatory breach of the Agreement. 36-2.) 5,433 people follow this. As an initial matter, it is plain in the Agreement that if either party breaches the contract, the non-breaching party is entitled to the earnest money. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gordon Ranch's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF Nos. Winecup Gamble Ranch. There were several situations contemplated by the October Agreement in which Gordon Ranch would be entitled to a refund of the earnest money. J. Pleadings, ECF No. See Fed. The Winecup Gamble Ranch is a working cattle ranch in northeast Nevada. The moving party must first satisfy its initial burden. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Winecup's election not to restore the Property then triggers the availability of two options to Gordon Ranch. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). (Id. Please reload. Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest. Gordon Ranch could have insisted on additional language in the Amendment in order to limit its waiver. On The Road To The WineCup Gamble Ranch (Part 1) July 26, 2017. If that contingency were to arise—i.e., if Winecup chose not to restore the Property—Gordon Ranch had two options: broadly speaking, to go through with the purchase or terminate the Agreement. www.winecupgambleranch.com. In 1979, … The flooding also gave rise to claims of liability from third parties, namely Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific"), which sent two letters to Winecup in February 2017 indicating that the failure of two dams on the Property caused damage to Union Pacific tracks and other property. See Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323-24. Therefore, the Amendment modified Section 14 so that Gordon Ranch retained the right to terminate the Agreement, but would forfeit the earnest money by doing so. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Because the agreement is ambiguous, we also vacate the denial of Winecup Gamble's motion for summary judgment. Elec. Livestock Farm. 2016). On a sunny early summer day, James Rogers stood next to a projector screen in the Winecup-Gamble Ranch’s horse barn to present his objectives for the northeastern Nevada ranch. As a basic rule of contract interpretation, "specific terms and exact terms are given greater weight than general language." Both parties claimed they were entitled to the earnest money under the plain terms of the Agreement, and both parties petitioned a court for declaratory relief on their claim. See id. The district court's attorneys' fees decision is moot and is vacated as well. (October Agreement ¶ 4, ECF No. Gordon Ranch shall submit a proposed form of judgment within fourteen (14) days of this Order. 3. Get free access to the complete judgment in Winecup Gamble, Inc. v. Gordon Ranch, LP on CaseMine. Citation. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. Such a dramatic revision of the risk-of-loss scheme is not supported by the broad, scattershot language of the Amendment. However, this contention is contrary to the plain language of the Amendment. change. Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. (Mot. Section 6 does not impose any affirmative obligation on Winecup to prevent material adverse changes from occurring, or to cure material adverse changes prior to closing. Judgment was entered accordingly. However, Section 4 of the Amendment provides: "Buyer waives its right to terminate the Agreement under the Buyer's Contingencies set forth in Section 6 of the Agreement . Judgment was entered accordingly. 44.) In other words, the nonmoving party cannot avoid summary judgment by relying solely on conclusory allegations unsupported by facts. 5,254 people like this. Here, there was no such release; the earnest money remained in escrow. All Winecup Gamble Ranch will assume no injury or liability. Both parties appeal. 36-2.) Argued and Submitted December 17, 2018 — San Francisco, California. 36.) 1 Winecup Rd (471.31 mi) Montello, NV 89835. Supply Co., 413 P.2d 500, 502 (Nev. 1966). The dispute here centered on which party was entitled to … ." ), Both parties now move for judgment as a matter of law regarding which of them is entitled to the $5 million that sits in escrow. v. (Amendment, ECF No. Sprawling across nearly a mi... See More. Since 1868, hundreds of talented and hard working individuals have graced the ranch with their presence and many have dedicated their entire working lives to it. Gordon Ranch proposes a strained reading of this part of the Amendment, contending that it waived certain of the conditions precedent in Section 6 but not all of them. ), aff'd, 672 F. App'x 698 (9th Cir. 36-1.) "For purposes of the motion, the allegations of the non-moving party must be accepted as true, while the allegations of the moving party which have been denied are assumed to be false." (Id. Bielar v. Washoe Health Sys., Inc., 306 P.3d 360, 364 (Nev. 2013). --------, Lastly, both parties argue that the other breached the Agreement by refusing to release the earnest money. At the summary judgment stage, a court's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth, but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Accordingly, setting aside the issue of waiver, the only reasonable interpretation of the Agreement is that a material adverse change to the Property would excuse Gordon Ranch's refusal to consummate the transaction but would not necessarily constitute a breach by Winecup. (Id. The district court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings, thus denying the motion for summary judgment without considering the merits of that motion; it also found that neither party was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees. Livestock Farm. The Winecup Gamble Ranch is currently carrying about 9,080 head of mature cattle exclusive of the 2016 calf crop. Get 2 points on providing a valid reason for the above Once a prevailing party has been determined, that party should be allowed to request or move for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, as such an award is available to the prevailing party under the plain terms of the agreement. As explained above, however, Winecup did not breach the Agreement. The Winecup Gamble Ranch is an iconic Great Basin ranch which produces environmentally-adapted livestock and exceptional grassfed beef in the northeast corner of the ecologically diverse and beautiful Silver State. Under Nevada law, the question of "[w]hether or not a document is ambiguous is a question of law for the court." 33) is DENIED. (ECF Nos. Pay is $2,000/month, possibly more if qualified. See Hal Roach Studios Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1987). In reality, Gordon Ranch's termination of the Agreement arose under Section 14, not Section 10. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. Rather, the parties merely disagreed on the correct reading of the contract and wished to submit their dispute to a court for an authoritative interpretation. Indus. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Accordingly, this dispute would perhaps be more easily resolved if there had been breach. However, the true apportionment of risk is not quite as cut and dried as in the case of third-party liabilities. In fact, it is clear that the only circumstance permitting Winecup to keep the earnest money following a termination was a breach of the October Agreement by Gordon Ranch. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. And without any opportunity to cure its alleged breach of warranty under Section 10, Winecup cannot be said to have defaulted under that Section. Indeed, such a reading of Section 6 is entirely inconsistent with Section 14, which expressly permits Winecup to elect not to restore the Property following a casualty event causing material damage. On the other hand, Gordon Ranch could opt to terminate the Agreement and receive a refund of the earnest money. 1989). . 36-3.) 36-1.) The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. The evidence of the nonmovant is "to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Get 1 point on providing a valid sentiment to this The district court based its decision on the fact that the terms of the parties' agreement, as amended, were clear and unambiguous on the critical question of whether the amendment was intended to shift or modify the risk-of-loss scheme. (October Agreement ¶ 6(c).) 8-10, ECF No. In its letter, Gordon Ranch asserted that Winecup's inability to "deliver at closing what was contracted for" constituted a material breach of the Agreement. Margrave v. Dermody Prop., 878 P.2d 291, 293 (Nev. 1994) (per curiam); see LK Comstock & Co. v. United Eng. The subject property, commonly known as the Winecup Gamble Ranch ("the Property"), comprises approximately 247,500 deeded acres, rights to federal grazing permits covering approximately 558,080 acres, and Nevada state grazing rights covering approximately 142,800 acres. To establish the existence of a factual dispute, the opposing party need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively in its favor. (Id. But this conclusion is simply wrong. GORDON RANCH LP, Defendant-Appellee. 1 After the sale fell through, both parties filed suit, arguing that they were entitled to Gordon Ranch's earnest money deposit pursuant to the terms of the parties' purchase and sale agreement, as amended by the parties in December 2016. Gordon Ranch had placed $5 million of earnest money in escrow in anticipation of an April 2017 closing date, but then terminated the Agreement following severe flooding on the Property in February 2017. There is no claim that the warranty was untrue as of the date the October Agreement was executed, and Gordon Ranch unilaterally terminated the Agreement prior to the close of escrow, so the warranty could not have been untrue as of the closing date, which never arrived. ), Having not received a formal response to its letter of February 24, and understanding that Winecup intended to move forward with the sale as originally planned, Gordon Ranch sent another letter through its attorney, along with a notice of default. Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions. Gordon Ranch attempted to purchase real property located in northern Nevada from Winecup Gamble in 2016.1 After the sale fell through, both parties filed suit, arguing that they were entitled to Gordon Ranch's earnest money deposit pursuant to the terms of the parties' purchase and sale agreement, as amended by the parties in December 2016. “It may not seem like much—all … Community See All. from Aerial Imaging Productions PRO . 36, 37). 08/12/2020 . Moreover, Winecup did not default under Section 10 because it was not provided notice and an opportunity to cure the alleged breach of warranty as required by Paragraph 8(a) of the October Agreement. Transp. The earnest money required by the October Agreement was amended to $5 million. On February 24, counsel for Gordon Ranch sent a letter to Winecup stating its position that Winecup bore the risk of loss and requesting an itemization and description of the damage and cost of repair.
2020 winecup gamble ranch lawsuit