Legal Opinion

Miscione v. Bishop

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided October 20, 1981No. 2 Ca-Civ 3928PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HATHAWAY, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial after a trial involving the incorrect execution of a promissory note.

In 1972, appellants (the Misciones) agreed to sell an unimproved lot to appellees (the Bishops). The Bishops agreed to pay $3,000 down and to give a mortgage securing a promissory note in which they would be obligated to pay the remaining purchase price as follows: One-tenth of the principal plus 7% interest per year, with the right to prepay without penalty. Unknown to the Misciones, the real estate agent prepared the note. It stated:

“.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Earven v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1980
  2. Fogleman v. Peruvian AssociatesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1980
  3. Gomez v. DykesArizona Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Gurske v. StrateNebraska Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Hillsdale Nat. Bank v. SansoneNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. United States Ex Rel. Farmers Home Administration v. RedlandWyoming Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Rhue v. DawsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
  3. Ponderosa Plaza v. SiplastCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1993
  4. Schmidt v. American LeascoCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1983
  5. Phil Bramsen Distributor, Inc. v. MastroniCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1986

9 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