Opinion ID: 1166761
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: Appellants, Roy O. and Gloria J. Mathis (the Mathises), have stated the following issue for review: The vendor under a real estate contract for deed made a computational error and specified a payment schedule which did not completely retire the principal and interest term intended by the vendor. Unaware of the computational error, the purchaser executed a contract and made the prescribed payments. After making the final payment, the purchaser demands performance by delivery of the deed. The vendor refuses, demanding additional payments to completely retire the principal and interest amounts. Must the purchaser make the additional payments in order to obtain the property? Appellees, H. Richard and Mary F. Wendling (the Wendlings), state the issues somewhat differently: 1. Is there sufficient evidence to support the trial court's determination as to the intent of the parties? 2. Did the trial court properly interpret the contract to reflect the intent of the parties?