Legal Opinion · Dissent

McGill v. Lester

Idaho Court of Appeals

Decided May 30, 1985No. 14686Published

1DissentWalters, Chief Judge

I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the Court. While it is conceivable that a duly exercised option to purchase realty might, in certain circumstances, be given legal effect as a security interest, the facts do not justify such a result in this case. By the Court’s opinion, a clearly worded option to purchase is transformed into a mortgage by the testimony of other interested parties as to their belief of LesterHibnes’ intent ten years earlier. The record indicates one of the reasons LesterHibnes entered into the option agreement was to protect their interest in Fretwell’s equity in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Crockett v. LowtherWyoming Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Credit Bureau of Preston v. SleightIdaho Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Boothe Financial Corp. v. Loretto Block, Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1982
  4. Gard v. ThompsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1912

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

Powered by the Exa API