Legal Opinion

Keesee v. Fetzek

Idaho Court of Appeals

Decided April 30, 1984No. 14381PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BURNETT, Judge.

This case presents the unusual dilemma of sellers seemingly impaled upon the forfeiture provision of a title-retaining real estate sale contract. The transaction went awry when the buyer defaulted and the sellers notified him that the contract would be terminated if the default were not cured. However, when the buyer failed to cure, the sellers decided to sue on the contract rather than to terminate it, because the property had deteriorated to a value less than the contract balance. The buyer insisted upon forfeiture. In a summary judgment, the district court agreed with the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Slay v. Burnett TrustTexas Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Hatfield v. Max Rouse & Sons NorthwestIdaho Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Aldape v. AkinsIdaho Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. Ellis v. ButterfieldIdaho Supreme Court · 1977
  5. MacLeod v. StelleIdaho Supreme Court · 1926

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Davis v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
  2. People v. TurleyColorado Court of Appeals · 1993
  3. Keesee v. FetzekIdaho Court of Appeals · 1986
  4. Porter v. SmithNebraska Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Wells v. United States Life InsuranceIdaho Court of Appeals · 1991

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API