Bendish v. Castillo, 812 N.W.2d 398

In 2003, Bendishes sold property to Castillo via contract for deed for $40,400; $7,500 down; $620.86 monthly; 5% interest; payments through Jan 1, 2005.
Dec 28, 2006, a Lease Purchase Agreement was executed among Bendishes, Castillo, and Cendak; it was not filed with the county recorder.
After Jan 2005, Bendishes received sporadic payments from Castillo or Gange; Castillo and then Gange operated on the property.
In 2010, Bendishes sued to cancel the contract for deed; Cendak counterclaimed alleging assignment and requested a warranty deed.
Trial court found Castillo in default on the contract for deed and Cendak in default under the Lease Purchase Agreement; contract canceled; no redemption.
Court discussed that cancellation by action carries no statutory redemption period and that redemption is discretionary; the Lease Purchase Agreement language did not clearly assign Castillo’s interest to Cendak.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying redemption.	Cendak asserts it was entitled to redemption due to alleged assignment and possession.	Bendishes contend there was no valid assignment and no interest granting redemption; equities do not favor redemption.	No abuse; court properly refused redemption.

Moch v. Moch, 1997 ND 69 (ND) (redemption discretion in cancellation action)
Adolph Rub Trust v. Rub, 474 N.W.2d 73 (ND) (no statutory redemption period in cancellation by action)
Liebelt v. Bender, 303 N.W.2d 316 (ND 1981) (equities determine redemption period; discretion not abused)
Shervold v. Schmidt, 359 N.W.2d 361 (ND) (cancellation in equity; deference to district court)
Bender v. Liebelt, 303 N.W.2d 316 (ND 1981) (context for redemption analysis in cancellation actions)
Ryan v. Bremseth, 186 N.W. (ND 1922) (ND) (historical redemption considerations in land contracts)