Fuller v. Equitable Sav. and Loan Ass'n, 82-3355
| Decision Date | 18 October 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-3355,82-3355 |
| Parties | Mark R. FULLER and Jacqueline R. Fuller, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EQUITABLE SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, an Oregon Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
R. Vern Kidwell, Holden, Kidwell, Hahn & Crapo, Idaho Falls, Idaho, Don G. Carter, McEwen, Newman, Hanna & Gisvold, Portland, Or., for defendant-appellee.
Eugene L. Bush, Sharp, Anderson, Bush & Nelson, Mark R. Fuller, Idaho Falls, Idaho, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of idaho.
Before KILKENNY, CHOY and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
The Fullers purchased a residence and sought to assume the seller's existing loan. The lender insisted that the interest rate on the loan be increased two percent as a condition to permitting the purchasers to assume. The purchasers brought a suit for breach of contract, alleging that the due-on-sale clause in the deed of trust afforded them the option of paying an assumption fee of two points in lieu of the increased rate of interest. The district court held that the due-on-sale clause permitted the bank to require the increase in interest rate. We affirm.
The deed of trust provides that the lender will waive the due-on-sale clause if the following four conditions are met:
(1) the credit of the third party is satisfactory to [the lender]; and (2) the third party shall assume full personal liability for payment and performance of the note, deed of trust and other security instruments; (3) a charge for administrative costs is paid to [the lender]; and (4) if required by [the lender], either the interest rate on the secured loan is increased by not more than 2%, or [the lender] is paid a lump sum compensation not to exceed two (2%) percent of the loan balance at the time of the assumption.
The Fullers contend that clause (4) allows the assuming purchaser, rather than the lender, to choose whether to pay the assumption fee or the higher interest rate. The district court found that the clause was not ambiguous and that it allowed the lender to choose between the assumption fee and higher interest rate.
The interpretation of a written contract is a question of law. See Transport Indemnity Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 620 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir.1980). In a diversity case, this court will not overturn a resident district judge's interpretation of the law of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kilroy Industries v. United Pacific Ins. Co.
...disagreement between the parties is as to the construction of the Policy which is a question of law. Fuller v. Equitable Savings and Loan Association, 718 F.2d 951, 952 (9th Cir.1983); Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Bloedel Timberlands Development, Inc., 28 Wash.App. 466, 624 P.2d 734, 836 (1982)......
-
Jeff D. v. Andrus
...Id. Under Idaho law, a contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably subject to different interpretations. Fuller v. Equitable Sav. and Loan Assn., 718 F.2d 951, 952 (9th Cir.1983) (citations were entered into in Idaho and the parties are all residents of Idaho. In re Beverly Hills Bankcorp, 64......
-
Jeff D. v. Andrus
...such language in the stipulation.... It was plaintiffs' job to negotiate an agreement that included them."). Sav. and Loan Assn., 718 F.2d 951, 952 (9th Cir.1983) (citations In construing the meaning of the Stipulation along with the Settlement Agreement, and in the context of the relevant ......
- Planned Parenthood of Cent. and Northern Arizona v. State of Ariz.