Court Opinion

ID: 9467612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:52:30.606721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:25.966257
License: Public Domain

J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting and concurring:
I respectfully disagree with my colleagues and the district court in finding and concluding that the circumstances surrounding the 1969 agreement were such as to permit summary judgment on the usury issues. In my view, there were genuine and material issues of fact, all of which are bound up with issues of credibility and the weight to be accorded the sharply conflicting evidence presented by the parties. However, in my view, it is not necessary to elaborate on those issues and I would not reach them.
The compromise and settlement culminating in the execution and delivery of the 1975 promissory note, under applicable Idaho case law, wiped the slate clean as between the parties. Summary judgment on this issue was proper. Frank's argument that the settlement note of 1975 is still tainted with usury is simply untenable. I concur in the conclusion reached in Part Y of Judge Choy’s opinion on the binding and enforceable effect of the compromise and settlement agreement, on the duress defense, and the conclusion to affirm the district court.