Rusch v. Kauker
South Dakota Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
SABERS, Justice.
Rusch appeals from a judgment in favor of Kauker claiming that the trial court erred in concluding the Offer and Agreement to purchase was not a binding agreement between the parties. We reverse and remand.
FACTS
Arthur and Lana Rusch (Rusch) owned a house at 620 Canby, Vermillion, S.D. Rusch lived in this house from 1976 until he moved to a new residence in Vermillion in 1982. The house had a mortgage balance of approximately $20,000. This mortgage contained a “callable on sale” clause which would allow the bank to request full payment of the mortgage if title became vested in…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Pullman-Standard v. SwintSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Permann v. South Dakota Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance DivisionSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
- Wiggins v. ShewmakeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1985
- In Re the Termination of the Franchise Agreement Between Groseth International, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1989
- Renner v. CrismanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1964
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Sander v. Geib, Elston, Frost Professional Ass'nSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. HarrisSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1993
- Cordell v. Codington CountySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1994
- Zurcher v. HerveatMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000
- Muhlenkort v. Union County Land TrustSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1995
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.