Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Rusch v. Kauker

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 24, 1991No. 17438Published

1ConcurrenceMiller, Chief Justice

For reasons stated by the majority, Kaukers’ objections to the contract for deed were unreasonable. As further support for that position, I feel compelled to state that, in my opinion, the clause in the mortgage (be it called a “due on sale” or “callable on sale” clause) is not applicable here.

That clause, in salient part, provides:

Mortgagors further covenant and agree that.... conveyances or other transfer of all or any part of the interest of mortgagors, or any of them, in all or any part of said premises whereby the title becomes vested in any other person, without obtaining in such…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Renner v. CrismanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1964
  2. Buhl v. BakSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Riley v. MillerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1922
  4. Wolken v. WadeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Tarpinian v. WheatonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1962

1 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