In 2004, Professor Paul Goda of Santa Clara University School of Law contacted two attorneys who represented parties in the case.  Their vague recollections of the case, 36 years after it was decided, differed somewhat. 

    One attorney recalls that the Masterson's sold the ranch, some 1300 acres that had been in the family for a long time, to the Sines because Dallas Masterson was in financial difficulty and needed the money.  The Mastersons included the option because they hoped that their financial fortunes would change and they would be able to reacquire the land.  He also recalls that the case went back to trial and that the judge (the trial was apparantly again conducted without a jury) concluded after hearing the previously excluded parol evidence that there was no oral agreement making the option non-assignable.  The judge thus entered a declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.  But the parties then settled with the Sines.  The Sines kept the land in exchange for a payment to the plaintiffs, but the payment was not large because the land apparantly had not appreciated significantly. 

     Both attorneys recall animosity between Mr. and Mrs. Masterson and their pending or contemplated divorce.