[DOWNLOAD] "Robert E. Rush v. Peter Tash Anestos" by Supreme Court of Idaho No. 13975 # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Robert E. Rush v. Peter Tash Anestos
- Author : Supreme Court of Idaho No. 13975
- Release Date : January 13, 1983
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 68 KB
Description
Plaintiffs initiated this quiet-title action alleging that they had acquired the vendee's (Anestos') interest in a real property contract, wherein Trayis and wife were owners and vendors, the said vendee's interest being sold at a bankruptcy sale. Lockhart Co., successor to Financial Credit Corporation, was (along with other defendants) alleged to claim some interest in the real property involved because of an assignment of the vendee's interest executed in its favor to secure a loan to the vendees (Anestos); it was alleged that the interests created by the assignment were either subsequent to and junior to the interests of the Plaintiffs herein, or have been fully foreclosed and terminated by the proceedings in bankruptcy, in bankruptcy proceedings in the United States District Court . . . . Plaintiffs also alleged that subsequent to acquiring the vendee's interest in the Trayis-Anestos contract, they also acquired the Trayis title and vendor's interest in the contract. Lockhart in answering admitted that it did so claim an interest, and in a counterclaim, thereafter amended, asserted that the assignment of the vendee's interest to it had been duly recorded, that the plaintiffs had been by it informed of the assignment, that there had not been any Notice of Default received by it, and alleged its willingness, and offer made therein, to tender an amount sufficient to bring the contract current at such time as the plaintiffs would advise it of the amount required to do so. Responding to the counterclaim, the plaintiffs alleged that any interest the Lockhart Company may have in the subject premises is either extinguished by the bankruptcy proceedings . . . or the Assignment under which Lockhart Company lays claim is invalid for other reasons . . . .