Brinton v. Haight
Idaho Court of Appeals
870 P.2d 677 (1994)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The Haights (defendants) bought property from the Brintons (plaintiffs) in exchange, in part, for a promissory note obligating the Haights to make installment payments to the Brintons. On November 9, 1990, the Haights presented the Brintons’ escrow agent with a check for the note’s payoff balance. The Haights requested immediate delivery of the deed. The escrow agent could not immediately comply with that request, so the Haights revoked the check. Over the next few days, presumably while the deed was being prepared, a disagreement ensued over a $28 “reconveyance fee” that the Brintons had charged. The fee had been included in the payoff balance and the check the Haights presented; however, the Haights had not became aware of the fee until after the check had been returned. The Haights maintained that they were not obligated to pay the fee. The Haights made no further installment payments on the note. On June 10, 1991, the Brintons filed suit, seeking payment of the balance of the note and unpaid interest through the date of the judgment. The Haights were willing to pay the principal but claimed that no interest was due as of November 9, 1990, when they tendered payment. The trial court found in favor of the Brintons, including on the question of prejudgment interest accruing after November 9, 1990. The Haights appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lansing, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
