Also known as: closing statements · closing argument · summation
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A written breakdown of all financial aspects of a real estate transfer. It itemizes purchase price, prorated taxes, fees, payoffs, and adjustments so that the parties can verify the amounts due at closing.
The final summation presented by counsel after the close of evidence. It summarizes the evidence, applies the law to the facts, and urges the fact-finder to reach a particular verdict or judgment.
A written breakdown of all financial aspects of a real estate transfer. It itemizes purchase price, prorated taxes, fees, payoffs, and adjustments so that the parties can verify the amounts due at closing.
The final summation presented by counsel after the close of evidence. It summarizes the evidence, applies the law to the facts, and urges the fact-finder to reach a particular verdict or judgment.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Cade Carpenter agreed to sell waterfront property to Crystal Dynamics. Silver Inns, the title agent, circulated a draft closing statement that required Carpenter to pay off an old easement before deed delivery. Carpenter refused, pointing to the deed's express exception for the easement. Because the closing statement and deed were inconsistent on the encumbrance, the parties could not close until the title agent reconciled the documents.
2 common questions
A closing statement itemizes the purchase price, prorated taxes and rents, title insurance premiums, recording fees, payoff amounts for existing liens, and any credits or adjustments between buyer and seller. Lawyers and title agents review these figures to confirm that title will pass free of unaddressed encumbrances.
Supporting sources
The appointment terminates one year after the closing statement is filed, provided no proceedings involving the personal representative are then pending. The statement must also have been sent to all distributees and known unpaid claimants.
Supporting sources
In a federal fraud trial against Connor Clark, the prosecutor gave only a brief opening summation and announced she would save most of her argument for rebuttal. Defense counsel objected. The court sustained the objection and required the government to present its full closing argument before the defense spoke, preserving the required sequence of government, defense, and limited rebuttal.
Sandra Adickes, a white school teacher from New York, was working as a volunteer teacher at a Freedom School for Negro children in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, during the summer of 1964. On August 14, 1964, Adickes went with six of her Negro students to the Hattiesburg Public Library, where the librarian refused to allow the students to use the library and summoned the chief of police, who ordered the group to leave. The group then went to the S. H. Kress & Co. store in Hattiesburg to have lunch. Adickes filed suit against Kress in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the group sat down at the lunch counter, a policeman entered the store and observed them. A waitress took the orders of the Negro students but refused to serve Adickes on the ground that she was a white person in the company of Negroes. The group left the store without being served. As they reached the sidewalk, the same policeman arrested Adickes on a vagrancy charge. The vagrancy charge against Adickes was subsequently changed, and she was tried and acquitted. Her complaint contained two counts under § 1983. One count alleged that Kress had refused her service pursuant to a custom of the community to segregate the races in public eating places that was enforced by the State. The other count alleged that the refusal of service and the arrest were the product of a conspiracy between Kress employees and the Hattiesburg police. Kress moved for summary judgment on the conspiracy count and submitted depositions from the store manager, the waitress, and the arresting officers, along with affidavits from police officials, all denying any agreement or communication with the police about refusing service or making the arrest. Adickes opposed the motion by pointing to her deposition statement and an unsworn statement from a Kress employee indicating that a policeman had been in the store at the time of the refusal. The District Court granted summary judgment on the conspiracy count, holding that Adickes had failed to allege facts from which a conspiracy might be inferred. After a trial on the custom count, the District Court directed a verdict for Kress because Adickes had not proved other instances of whites being refused service while in the company of Negroes. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's rulings on both counts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View case2 common questions
The government presents its closing first, the defense responds, and the government may then offer a rebuttal limited to issues raised by the defense. This sequence prevents the prosecution from withholding its main argument until after the defense has spoken.
Supporting sources
No. The Fifth Amendment forbids the prosecutor or the court from inviting the jury to treat the defendant's silence as substantive evidence of guilt. Such comments violate the privilege against self-incrimination even if framed as going to intent or credibility.
Supporting sources
…is readily explained. More importantly, the phrase has never been taken to be a considered, comprehensive, and authoritative summation of the provisions of § 1983. As this Court said over a century ago and has since repeated, "In expounding a statute, we must not be guided by a single sentence or member of a sentence, but…