## Facts

- The Haights bought real property from the Brintons and executed a $64,500 installment promissory note secured by a deed of trust naming a title company as trustee; the trustee also acted as escrow holder for payments.
- On November 9, 1990, after receiving a payoff quote, Mr. Haight delivered a cashier’s check for the quoted payoff amount to the trustee and requested a trustee’s reconveyance to release the deed of trust.
- The trustee said reconveyance could not be issued immediately but would be available the next business day; Haight took back the cashier’s check after it had been held briefly.
- The Haights later objected that the payoff figure included a reconveyance-related charge and asserted they were not obligated to pay it; they offered to pay the principal and interest through November 9 (plus limited escrow fees) if reconveyance would occur in the trustee’s normal course of business, or simultaneously if paying by cashier’s check.
- The trustee refused to reconvey without payment of the disputed charge, and the Haights stopped making installment payments.
- The Brintons sued to recover the remaining note balance, prejudgment interest, and to foreclose the deed of trust; the Haights conceded the principal was owed but argued that interest stopped accruing due to their tender.
- The district court ruled for the Brintons, awarding prejudgment interest after November 9, 1990, and awarding attorney fees and costs, concluding the tender was invalid because it was conditioned on reconveyance.
- The Haights appealed the awards of post-tender prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and costs.

## Issues

1. Whether the Haights made a valid tender of full payment that stopped further accrual of interest, despite insisting on reconveyance (or commitment to reconvey) and retrieving the cashier’s check when immediate reconveyance was unavailable.
2. Whether, after a valid tender, the Brintons could recover prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and costs incurred after the tender date.

## Decision

- The Idaho Court of Appeals reversed in part and remanded for modification of the judgment.
- The court held the Haights’ tender of full payment was valid and halted further accrual of interest on the note.
- The court held the tender precluded assessment against the Haights of attorney fees and costs incurred after the tender date.
- The court left undisturbed the determination that the principal balance remained owing.

## Legal Principles

- A valid tender of full performance on a debt stops the running of interest from the tender date when the creditor prevents completion of performance by refusing the tender.
- A debtor’s insistence on receiving a reconveyance (or a reasonable assurance of reconveyance) upon payoff is not an improper condition when it merely requires performance of an existing duty tied to satisfaction of a deed of trust.
- When a creditor or its agent rejects a proper tender while demanding sums not owed, the creditor may not shift to the debtor post-tender attorney fees and costs attributable to the refusal and resulting litigation.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that the Haights’ payoff tender, coupled with a reasonable demand for reconveyance consistent with the secured transaction, was effective to stop interest and bar post-tender fees and costs, requiring modification of the judgment while leaving the principal obligation intact.


Brinton v. Haight, 125 Idaho 324, 870 P.2d 677 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994)