Connection lost
Server error
BRINTON v. HAIGHT Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A debtor offered to pay off a secured loan, conditioning payment on the simultaneous release of the deed of trust. The court held this was a valid tender with a proper condition, which stopped further interest and costs from accruing.
Legal Significance: Establishes that tender of payment on a secured debt may be validly conditioned upon the simultaneous release of the security instrument, as these are concurrent obligations under contract law, thereby stopping the accrual of interest and costs.
BRINTON v. HAIGHT Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The Haights (debtors) purchased property from the Brintons (creditors), executing a promissory note secured by a deed of trust. Pioneer Title Co. was the trustee. The Haights attempted to pay off the note by presenting a cashier’s check for the full payoff balance to Pioneer. They conditioned the payment on the simultaneous receipt of a deed of reconveyance. Pioneer’s agent stated she could not provide the reconveyance deed immediately. Consequently, Mr. Haight took back the check. A subsequent dispute arose over a $25 reconveyance fee, which the Haights argued they were not obligated to pay. The Haights maintained they were ready and willing to pay the principal and interest owed as of the date of their initial offer. The Brintons filed suit, seeking the principal balance, interest accrued after the attempted payment, and attorney’s fees. The district court ruled for the Brintons, finding the Haights’ tender was invalid because the condition was unreasonable.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a debtor’s tender of full payment on a secured debt, conditioned upon the simultaneous delivery of a deed of reconveyance, constitute a valid tender sufficient to stop the accrual of interest and preclude liability for costs and attorney’s fees?
Yes. The Haights’ tender was valid because the condition of simultaneous reconveyance Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labor
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a debtor’s tender of full payment on a secured debt, conditioned upon the simultaneous delivery of a deed of reconveyance, constitute a valid tender sufficient to stop the accrual of interest and preclude liability for costs and attorney’s fees?
Conclusion
This case affirms the contract principle that payment and performance of a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolo
Legal Rule
Under I.C. § 28-3-604(1), a party making a tender of full payment Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis proceeded in three steps. First, it concluded that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cup
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A debtor’s tender of payment on a secured note is valid