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

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

Doris owned 160 acres of farmland. D and his wife occupied a five-acre portion of this land and operated an auto salvage business thereon. The portion of land occupied by D was covered with vehicles and, for the most part, surrounded by a fence. Two grain bins were also located within the fenced area. The other 155 tillable acres were, and still are, leased to a third party. The lease provides that the third party can use the two grain bins located on the land occupied by D. Karen and David serve as co-executors of P. The family disputes over D's operation of the salvage business resulted in two separate lawsuits. Both were settled by compromise, and the court approved the settlement agreement. Further disputes erupted over the sale and closing of the with each family party arguing constantly over the terms and conditions for a final sale. Suffice to say, D paid $20,000 and was to convey another $30,000 on closing for the salvage business land. D was to also fix conditions upon the land as specified. The first closing attempt was aborted for all kinds of reasons. In a second attempt, P claimed the terms of the contract were not fulfilled and refused to close. P then took the $20,000 as a forfeiture. D filed this motion to enforce the settlement agreement. P filed a cross-motion. The court then concluded the $ 0,000 down payment was forfeited because D 'failed to perform by not only providing access to the grain bins but also by failing to remove junk cars from outside the fence boundary, an agreed upon contingency required prior to closing.' D appealed.

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

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