Respondent did not refinance the debts so as to release Betty Anderson. Because the only asset was respondent's homestead, appellant was unable to collect the judgment. The district court denied the petition. We conclude appellant is entitled to neither as a matter of law. Appellant's agreement with Betty Anderson was an attempt to circumvent this statute.
Rescission is available only to an innocent party.
Because appellant is not an innocent party, it is not entitled to rescission. Even if appellant were an innocent party, neither of its arguments for rescission is persuasive. But appellant misstates the holding of Gartner. Gartner involved a mistake of fact, in property the parties believed could be developed that could not in fact be developed. The contract was rescinded on that basis.