Legal Opinion

Keesee v. Fetzek

Idaho Court of Appeals

Decided July 30, 1986No. 16103PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BURNETT, Judge.

This is the second appellate round of a battle over remedies for a buyer’s default on a real estate contract. The principal issue presented today is whether the sellers are estopped to pursue remedies other than forfeiture. The district court held that they are. We affirm.

The facts are undisputed. As noted in our first decision, Keesee v. Fetzek, 106 Idaho 507, 681 P.2d 600 (Ct.App.1984) (Keesee I), Jimmy and Ruby Keesee sold urban land and a furnished house to Joseph Fetzek on an installment contract. Fetzek later assigned his interest to Allied Investments, Inc., but did not…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Twin Falls Clinic & Hospital Building Corp. v. HamillIdaho Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Dawson v. MeadIdaho Supreme Court · 1976
  3. KTVB, INC. v. Boise CityIdaho Supreme Court · 1971
  4. Marshall Bros., Inc. v. GeislerIdaho Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Evans v. Idaho State Tax CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1975

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Lunders v. Estate of SnyderIdaho Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Schoonover v. Bonner CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Thomas v. Arkoosh Produce, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Wells v. United States Life InsuranceIdaho Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Grove v. StateIdaho Court of Appeals · 2017

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