This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Madhaven (P) entered into a contract to buy property from Sucher (D). P paid a $3,000 deposit, and the contract made the sale to Ps subject to existing building and use restrictions, easements, and zoning ordinances. When title was searched, problems were found but a second mortgage survey revealed that the first search was erroneous and that the drainage easement actually encroached upon a portion of the concrete patio attached to the rear of the dwelling. The mortgagee advised D that it was ready to proceed with the closing, but P rescinded their offer the week before. D declared the deposit forfeited and P sued to recover it. The district court agreed with P and granted summary judgment holding that D was unable to convey marketable title.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.