Opinion ID: 2617561
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Clear Mandate of the Court

Text: The Mauchs next argue that the circuit court erred when it found that the Mauchs did not have a right to cure any default of the Blackwells. They contend that because this court in Weinberg II reversed the circuit court's granting of summary judgment, we conclusively determined that the Mauchs did indeed have the right to cure. The Mauchs argue that this court in Weinberg I confirmed the validity of the February 1980 agreement, thereby according the Mauchs the right to cure. However, this was not our conclusion in Weinberg I. At no time did this court conclusively determine that the Mauchs had the right to cure. This court held that because there was an issue as to the validity of the assignment, the rights created by the February 1980 Blackwell/Mauch agreement, including the right to cure, also may have been at issue.