Opinion ID: 901213
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Availability of Amount Owed

Text: [¶ 12.] In addition to McKinnies' stated intent to pay the amount owed, they also had the money available. In an affidavit, dated July 24, 2000, Walker Witt of Bakewell, Vander Heide & Witt law firm, testified that the money was escrowed. His testimony was as follows: (1) That prior to May 3, 2000, affiant's law firm received from the [McKinnies] monies sufficient to satisfy all monetary obligations necessary to complete the purchase of the real estate by the [McKinnies] from [Adrian] at closing. (2) That the above-mentioned monies were placed in escrow to be released upon closing. (3) That the monies remained in the escrow account and was [sic] available for closing on and after May 10, 2000, the date the title insurance policy was available, and said monies remain available for closing at any time. In Adrian's deposition dated July 31, 2000, the following exchange occurred [9] : Q. Okay. Go through this real quick here. Going back to this default situation here, you were assured by Mr. Porter that the money was in existence at Tim Vander Heide's account in Custer, South Dakota for payment of the payoff on this contract. Were you advised of that? A. Yes, I was advised that it was there, but I had no proof that it was there. Q. What kind of proof did you want? A.... And yes, I heard that somebody had put some money in there, but nobody offered to check, nobody said here's a dollar to seal the contract, nobody did anything. I heard that it was there and that's all. Q. But you elected not to believe that? A. Well, from past experience I figured no. Q. Well, in past experience had attorneys ever represented to you that his attorneys had the money in their accounts? A. Well, when they did, it was past due. He had 30 days to do it and it didn't happen. [¶ 13.] At the court trial in Adrian I on August 4, 2000, a few days after Adrian was deposed, he testified as follows: Q. Okay. Okay. The money's in escrow now. Why won't you take it? A. Because the contract is broken. Q. That's the only reason why? A. Well, he defaulted on it. That's what the contract says. Q. Okay. A. Says you can terminate it when the default is not cured and that's what I did. ... Q. Okay. And so the only reason that you have for not taking the money is that he just broke the contract and that's it? A. Yes, he broke the contract. ... Q. Okay. But my question is, the reason you won't take the money is just because he broke the contract and, therefore, is out of luck, right? A. Yes,I  Q. What's the problem  A. The whole agreement should be terminated because that's what the  that's what the agreement says. At the hearing after the remand of Adrian I, Adrian persistently claimed that McKinnies had breached the contract by cutting timber and had defaulted by not paying within 30 days from the notice of default. Adrian continued to refuse McKinnies' offer of full payment.