Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Case Brief: Balistreri v. Nevada Livestock Production Credit Association. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 3 page brief of this 1989 case in which a couple completed a deed of trust on their residence by mistake. The California court of appeals found that there was no contract, because both Appellants and Respondent were mistaken in their intent and statements. No sources listed.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: CC6_KSlawBrBalis.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
and margins to < 1" will squeeze all text onto one page in keeping with space limits. CASE NAME: Balistreri v. Nevada Livestock Production Credit Association
TRIBUNAL: Cal.Court of Appeals First District Division 2 Oct 3, 1989. ISSUE: Appellants son
sought and gained a loan for a failed agricultural venture, using the house that he owned jointly with his parents as collateral for the loan. The sons house is
in Sebastopol; his parents home is in Petaluma. Respondent asked the parents for a deed of trust on their home in Sebastopol, though the contract requested by the Respondent
involved the parents residence in Petaluma. The Respondent tried to foreclose on the parents home that they did not know was at risk.
FACTS: * The Balistreris son sought a loan for an agricultural venture that ultimately failed, using his Sebastopol home as collateral. * The son owns his Sebastopol home
jointly with his parents, who own their residence in Petaluma. * The Sebastopol property already was being used as collateral in too many loans; Respondent sought additional collateral property in
the form of the parents Petaluma residence. * Respondent requested that the parents execute a deed of trust on their home. The package containing the request contained a cover
letter making specific reference to the property in Sebastopol; the contract enclosed in the package named the Petaluma property as the object of the deed of trust. * Respondent attempted
to foreclose on both properties when the sons venture failed. * The Balistreris claim they never intended to put their residence at risk and that they were misled by the
...