{"id":950,"date":"2012-07-21T07:10:36","date_gmt":"2012-07-21T11:10:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=950"},"modified":"2012-08-16T14:47:12","modified_gmt":"2012-08-16T18:47:12","slug":"joyner-v-adams-case-brief","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/joyner-v-adams-case-brief\/","title":{"rendered":"Joyner v. Adams, 87 N.C. App. 570 (1987)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case Name: <\/strong>Joyner v. Adams
\nPlaintiff: <\/strong>Joyners (husband and wife)
\nDefendant:<\/strong> J.R. Adams (substitute lessee\/developer)
\nCitation: <\/strong>87 N.C. App. 570 (1987)
\nKey Facts: <\/strong>Joyner leased a property to an investment company to develop it (\u201cbase lease\u201d). The original investment company was not able to complete this, so Adams assumed the lessee\/developer position. The lease obligated Adams to have subdivided \u201call of the undeveloped land\u2026and have it developed and eligible for the execution of a \u201clot lease\u201d by September 30, 1980 (recomputation provision). By that date, Adams had executed separate lot leases and built buildings on all but one lot. However, that lot was subdivided, graded, and had installed water and sewer lines, etc.<\/p>\n

Joyner filed a complaint seeking to recover the rent which it would have received had the last lot be developed.<\/p>\n

Adams said that from his experience and the local real estate market, a lot is considered \u201cdeveloped\u201d when water and sewer lines are installed and the lot is otherwise ready for the construction of a building.<\/p>\n

Procedural Posture: <\/strong>The trial awarded judgment for plaintiff based on the rule that ambiguity in contract terms must be construed most strongly against the party which drafted the contract.<\/p>\n

Judgment: <\/strong>Remanded because in order for the court to use the rule below \u201cthe form of expression in words was actually chosen by one party rather than by the other\u201d in order to apply the rule.<\/p>\n

Rule: <\/strong>Ambiguity in contract terms must be construed most strongly against the party which drafted the contract (typically used in adhesion contracts). The court stated that the plaintiff can prevail only if the trial court concludes that the defendant knew or at least had reason to know of the meaning he intended while the plaintiff did not<\/em> know (or have reason to know) of the meaning the defendant intended. This would mean that there was no meeting of the minds on the term “developed.” Where both parties have knowledge of the other parties understanding, then there is no meeting of the minds. Therefore, the first step is to figure out if one party has knowledge of the term when the other party doesn’t.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case Name: Joyner v. Adams Plaintiff: Joyners (husband and wife) Defendant: J.R. Adams (substitute lessee\/developer) Citation: 87 N.C. App. 570 (1987) Key Facts: Joyner leased a property to an investment company to develop it (\u201cbase lease\u201d). The original investment company was not able to complete this, so Adams assumed the lessee\/developer position. The lease obligated … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Joyner v. Adams, 87 N.C. App. 570 (1987)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[81,13],"tags":[189],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","yoast_head":"\nJoyner v. Adams, 87 N.C. App. 570 (1987) -<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Case brief for Joyner v. Adams, 87 N.C. App. 570 (1987). Joyner leased a property to an investment company\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/joyner-v-adams-case-brief\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Joyner v. Adams, 87 N.C. App. 570 (1987) -\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Case brief for Joyner v. Adams, 87 N.C. App. 570 (1987). Joyner leased a property to an investment company\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/joyner-v-adams-case-brief\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MiB Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2012-07-21T11:10:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-08-16T18:47:12+00:00\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"name\":\"MiB Law\",\"description\":\"Lawschool Notes and Outlines\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/joyner-v-adams-case-brief\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/joyner-v-adams-case-brief\/\",\"name\":\"Joyner v. Adams, 87 N.C. App. 570 (1987) -\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2012-07-21T11:10:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-08-16T18:47:12+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\"},\"description\":\"Case brief for Joyner v. Adams, 87 N.C. App. 570 (1987). Joyner leased a property to an investment company\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/joyner-v-adams-case-brief\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\",\"name\":\"Andrew\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/1.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e4456f2e886e2b22adb13ba439e70ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/miblaw\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/950"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=950"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/950\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":953,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/950\/revisions\/953"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}