Allied Investments, Inc. v. Dunn

663 P.2d 300, 104 Idaho 764, 1983 Ida. LEXIS 442
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
DecidedMay 4, 1983
DocketNo. 13947
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 663 P.2d 300 (Allied Investments, Inc. v. Dunn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allied Investments, Inc. v. Dunn, 663 P.2d 300, 104 Idaho 764, 1983 Ida. LEXIS 442 (Idaho 1983).

Opinion

DONALDSON, Chief Justice.

The two parties, Allied Investments, Inc. and the Dunns, recorded a deed of trust on February 22, 1979. The plaintiff, Allied Investments, Inc., failed to make payments in May and June of 1980 and on June 16, 1980, the defendants, the Dunns, filed a notice of default. At trial the court found that on October 9, 1980, Mr. Westmark, an officer of Allied Investments, Inc., called counsel for the defendants and stated that he was in a position to tender payment subject to knowing the amount of attorney fees. Counsel for the defendants advised Mr. Westmark that they were accelerating the note and wanted the entire balance. This conversation took place on the 115th day following the notice of default and Mr. Westmark stated in an affidavit that he knew the 115-day period to cure, had ended but .he was unable to collect the entire balance requested by the defendants so he contacted an attorney. The attorney called counsel for the defendants and stated that following I.C. § 45-15061 the plaintiff was [765]*765required to pay only the arrearages that led to the default notice. The defendants then agreed to give the plaintiff until October 17, 1980, to cure the default. However, on October 16, 1980, counsel for the plaintiff advised the defendants’ attorney that after October 9, 1980, Mr. Westmark had spent the money he had intended to tender to the defendants in payment of other pressing debts and counsel for the plaintiff requested a further extension. Counsel for the defendants refused the request. The plaintiff then brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment and a temporary injunction. The district court denied the injunction and this appeal followed. The plaintiff obtained an injunction pending appeal.

The district court found, “that no actual ‘tender’ was made on October 9, 1980, nor has any such ‘tender’ been made to this date.” Quoting 74 Am.Jur.2d, Tender § 7, 549-550, this Court in Pollard Oil Co. v. Christensen, 103 Idaho 110, 116, 645 P.2d 344, 350 (1982), defined a valid tender:

“ ‘A mere offer to pay does not constitute a valid tender, the law requires that the tenderer have the money present and ready, and produce and actually offer it to the other party. Tender implies the physical act of offering the money or thing to be tendered, but this cannot rest in implication alone. The law requires an actual, present, physical offer; it is not satisfied by a mere spoken offer to pay, which, although indicative of present possession of the money and intention to produce it, is unaccompanied by any visible manifestation of intention to make the offer good.’ ”

There is no evidence in the record that there was an actual production or delivery of the money. We agree with the trial court that if the plaintiff had produced the money and the defendant had refused to accept this amount, an injunction would have been in order. However, the record indicates that the plaintiff’s offer was not coupled with a present ability to do the act. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the request for injunctive relief.

The plaintiff argues that a tender is not required when its futility is shown. This Court has stated that an “offer and a refusal is futility enough.” Loomis v. Imperial Motors, Inc., 88 Idaho 74, 77, 396 P.2d 467, 468 (1964) quoted in Owens v. Idaho First National Bank, 103 Idaho 465, 649 P.2d 1221 (Ct.App.1982). The defendants’ statement that the entire balance was due is not sufficient to constitute a refusal, thus excusing the plaintiff from making a valid tender.

On appeal the plaintiff also claims that if the trial court’s decision is affirmed, the defendants must reinstitute the foreclosure proceedings pursuant to I.C. § 45-1506 and send a notice of sale 120 days before the date fixed by the trustee.2 In their reply brief the defendants agree. Therefore, we [766]*766affirm with directions that notice of the sale be given pursuant to I.C. § 45-1506.

Costs to respondents.

No attorney fees on appeal.

SHEPARD, BAKES, BISTLINE and HUNTLEY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

McLaughlin v. Moore
Idaho Supreme Court, 2025
Diamond v. Sandpoint Title Ins., Inc.
968 P.2d 240 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
663 P.2d 300, 104 Idaho 764, 1983 Ida. LEXIS 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allied-investments-inc-v-dunn-idaho-1983.