Legal Opinion · Dissent

Schwarting v. Schwarting

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 30, 1984No. Civ. 10610Published

1DissentPederson, Justice

By requiring LaDonna to pay interest on the purchase price from the date LeRoy and Marie would have been entitled to receive the purchase price has the effect of making time “of the essence” for LaDonna but not for LeRoy and Marie.

*711In my view equity lies with LaDonna, who did not default. If there are other matters that shift the balance of the equities to LeRoy and Marie, the trial court should have pointed them out to us in findings of fact. Because it did not do that, the trial court’s decision is, on its face, an “abuse of discretion.”

Under the majority opinion vendors will be encouraged…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Pillsbury v. StreeterNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Nasset v. HouskaNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1921

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

Powered by the Exa API