Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Schrader v. Benton
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Charles and Elizabeth Benton (Defendants) owned a condo. Defendants had executed a mortgage on the property in favor of Amfac Financial (Amfac) for $31,800. The mortgage contained a provision requiring Defendants to get Amfac’s consent to any sale or have the balance accelerated. Defendants negotiated to sell their condo to Philip Harder for $44,500. Under the terms of the Deposit, Receipt, Offer and Acceptance (DROA) contract, Harder agreed to pay $7,000 in cash and the $37,500 balance over three years at a nine percent interest rate in monthly installments of at least $325. The DROA stated that the condo was being sold subject to Amfac’s mortgage, but the parties agreed that the property was to transfer free of the mortgage. Harding assigned his interest under the DROA to Dean and Barbara Schrader (Plaintiffs). Defendants did not want to pay off the mortgage at closing. Rather, the parties would enter a wrap-around financing agreement, under which Defendants would continue making payments on the mortgage as Plaintiffs paid installments to them. This would allow Plaintiffs to avoid the high interest of an institutional mortgage loan and Defendants to enjoy a greater rate of return on the sale. After paying off the mortgage, Defendants stood to earn $12,700 on the sale. The DROA required consent of any necessary third parties. Amfac would not consent to the sale free of its mortgage but would have permitted Plaintiffs to assume the obligation, which Defendants rejected. Plaintiffs sued for specific performance. Both sides moved for summary judgment, which the court granted in favor of Plaintiffs. The trial court gave Plaintiffs the option to pay the purchase price in cash or assume the loan, in which case Defendants would remain secondarily liable for two years. Defendants appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.