Rebecca Masterson is one of the plaintiffs.  She has not filed bankruptcy and is seeking a declaration that she has a right to exercise an option to purchase some land.  The bankruptcy trustee, though not named in the caption of the opinion, is another plaintiff.  The trustee seeks a declaration that the trustee, and not Rebecca Masterson, is entitled to exercise the option.  The Sines are named as defendants because the plaintiffs want a court declaration to bind the Sines.   Thus, it is really Rebecca Masterson and the trustee who are adverse to one another in this litigation, even though both are named as plaintiffs.  The Sines might be indifferent to who gets the right to exercise the option because they get the same amount no matter who exercises the option.  On the other hand, the Sines might hope that Rebecca Masterson wins because of the family relationship.  Moreover, the Sines do care about the amount to be paid for exercise of the option and want to be sure that they don't sell the land to the wrong person. 

     Rebecca wants the ability to exercise the option so that she can keep the land in her family (something from which her husband will obviously benefit).   The trustee in bankruptcy wants the ability to exercise the option for the benefit of Mr. Masterson's unsecured creditors. 

     When a debtor files what is now known as a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, the bankruptcy court appoints a bankruptcy trustee who has the power and obligation to gather assets belonging to the debtor (other than some assets designated as exempt, such as the debtor's clothes), liquidate those assets, and distribute the proceeds to the debtor's unsecured creditors.  In this case, the trustee claimed as one of the debtor's assets the debtor's right to exercise an option to purchase some land.   If the option price is $50,000 (as the evidence suggested), but the land is now worth $150,000, the trustee can gain $90,000 for unsecured creditors by exercising the option and then selling the land.  In this case, probably based on a real estate appraisal, the trustee concluded that the ranch was worth more than the amount of money necessary to exercise the option.

     The dispute considered in this opinion is whether the trial court should have excluded evidence that would have shown an agreement by the Mastersons and the Sines that only the Mastersons, and not someone else (such as a bankruptcy trustee), could exercise the option.  Under bankruptcy law enacted by Congress 18 years later, in 1978, such an agreement is no longer effective to preclude the trustee from exercising such an option.