Wednesday, June 29, 2011
The brothers wanted to sell the land and terminated the leases. However, the Court ruled that Chamberlin had repudiated the agreements by failing to pay rent. It was determined that Chamberlin could not rely on the termination clauses in the agreements. The Court also dismissed a claim made by Chamberlin for input costs he had allegedly invested in the land, finding that there was no evidence produced that would allow an assessment of these costs to be made. The Court did, however, acknowledge that costs had been incurred and on that basis declined to award court costs against Chamberlin.
Read the decision at: Chamberlin v Larson.