Bartos v. Czerwinski

Bartos (plaintiff) agreed to buy real property from Czerwinski (defendant), who was contractually obligated to provide an abstract showing marketable title. Bartos's attorney found that a predecessor in Czerwinski's chain of title might still hold an undivided half interest in the property. Czerwinski prepared, but never obtained execution of, a quitclaim deed from that predecessor. Bartos sued for specific performance; the trial court denied the remedy and dismissed the complaint, and Bartos appealed.