Court Opinion

ID: 9849387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:39:22.769797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:21.671889
License: Public Domain

Otis, Justice
(dissenting).
There is not, in my opinion, any persuasive evidence in this record to support a finding that the following document was intended by the parties to be a mortgage and not an option as it is labeled:
“Option Contract
“For and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the undersigned Harold A. Hoban hereby grants unto Francis D. Gagne and Robert L. Gagne, the option to purchase the following tract of land located in Hennepin County, Minnesota:
“East half of Southeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 119, Range 23, containing eighty acres more or less, subject to existing highway.
“The purchase price of the property, if this property be purchased under this option on or before February 28, 1959 is Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($8,700.00) and if purchased subsequent to that date and on or before August 29, 1959, the price is Nine Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($9,200.00). This option expires absolutely on August 30, 1959.
“If this option be exercised, conveyance shall be made by Quit Claim deed, with Harold A. Hoban warranting that no incumbrances or liens have been placed on the property by him.
“Further, Harold A. Hoban grants to Francis D. Gagne and Robert *482L. Gagne the right to the exclusive use of the aforesaid property, from the date of this agreement to and including August 29, 1959, and whether this option be exercised or not. The exclusive use shall include the right to plant and harvest crops during this period of time. Francis D. Gagne and Robert L. Gagne agree to keep the property and the buildings thereon in good condition, ordinary wear and tear, and Acts of God and the public enemy excepted.
“Harold A. Hoban does not agree to pay any taxes or special assessments and agrees to convey title under this agreement, if the option be exercised, subject to all such taxes and special assessments being levied or falling due between the date of this instrument and the date of the deed, if any.
“Time is of the essence of this agreement.
“In witness whereof, the parties thereto have subscribed their names this 29th day of August, 1958.”
There was no debtor-creditor relationship when defendant took title and gave plaintiff an option to buy. However, whether the instrument is an option or a mortgage, plaintiff has refused to comply with its terms beyond making a payment of $1,000 in the year 1960. I would deny equitable relief to one who has himself so utterly faffed to do equity.