Russell v. Russell

I dissent from the majority’s opinion. My specific point of disagreement is with the holding that the legal description was sufficiently incorporated into the earnest money agreement to be part of it. I would hold that the legal description was not sufficiently incorporated and that, without it, the earnest money agreement is so incomplete as to be unenforceable under Idaho’s *156statute of frauds relating to transfers of real property interests.1

There appears to be no dispute that seller’s action is based on the “Earnest Money Agreement” and that seller’s rights are determined by that document.…