As we recently stated in Estate of Shuck v. We will affirm only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the legal questions have been correctly decided. All reasonable inferences drawn from the facts must be viewed in favor of the non-moving party. The burden is on the moving party to clearly show an absence of any genuine issue of material fact and an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Wilson v. Great N. Ry.
Summary judgment is a preferred process to dispose of legally unmeritorious claims.
We determine that an abuse of discretion occurred only if no judicial mind, in view of the law and the circumstances of the particular case, could reasonably have reached such a conclusion. Whether the trial court erred or abused its discretion in granting the Mattsons' motion for summary judgment on their claim for rescission. The Rachettos claim the trial court erred or abused its discretion in allowing summary judgment on the Mattsons' count for rescission of the 1984 land sale. They claim the Mattsons do not need the land for agricultural use but instead want it back because of its significant increase in value and their desire to sub-divide the land. The Rachettos also claim the Mattsons should not be allowed rescission because they come before the court with unclean hands as the Mattsons have an obvious, devious motive.