Opinion ID: 2611825
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the district court's order cancelling van velson's recorded mortgage against the mall is unenforceable because such a remedy was clearly in excess of any damages actually suffered by associates.

Text: Van Velson does not dispute the purchase agreement's provision that in the event Van Velson defaulted, the monies deposited would be forfeited as liquidated damages according to Section 8.12. Rather, in one of its briefs opposing summary judgment, Van Velson claimed that cancellation of its mortgage and forfeiture of the $400,000 down payment would constitute a penalty unenforceable under New York law. However, beyond the conclusory assertion in its brief, Van Velson provided no evidentiary matter or case precedent to the trial court as to why $400,000 constitutes an unenforceable penalty under the circumstances. Hence, Van Velson failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact on this theory. E.g., McCoy v. Lyons, 120 Idaho 765, 820 P.2d 360 (1991) (party opposing summary judgment may not rest on mere speculation, scintilla of evidence is not enough to create a genuine issue of fact).