*1 672 relating to Polesky the blood Dr.

mony of expense of this tests. Much

grouping by cooperation the been avoided have

could attorney. these his Under Ronald and

circumstances, tempo- find the award of we attorney to be reasonable.

rary fees Disposition.

VI. eq- properly exercised its

The trial court determining paterni- jurisdiction in

uitable support. We affirm

ty, custody child and judgment. decree and

the trial court’s

AFFIRMED. LAND BANK

The FEDERAL OF OMAHA, Corporation, A Cornwall, Christopher Bjornstad A. of Plaintiff-Appellee, Scott, Avery, Bjornstad Spencer, & for de- v. fendants-appellants. Kenneth R. REINHARDT Kenneth a/k/a Wilke, R. Bennett of Herbert Bennett & Reinhardt, L. Reinhardt and Doris hus- Dodge, plaintiff-appellee. Fort for wife, Reinhardt, band and William and

Defendants-Appellants, HAYDEN, P.J., by and Heard HABHAB, SACKETT and JJ. Bank, County Emmet State Defendant. No. 87-956. HAYDEN, Presiding Judge. Defendants, Rein- Kenneth and Doris Appeals Court of of Iowa. son, Reinhardt, ap- hardt William and their 29, 1988. June setting peal judgment district court the aside sheriff’s sale and the of .Kenneth They Doris Reinhardt’s farm. contend plaintiff, The Federal Land Bank of Omaha (Land Bank), to ne- failed show excusable glect ignorance, irregularities or in the or notice of the sale. We affirm. scope Our review is Iowa of de novo. R.App.P. give weight to the fact 4. We findings court, especially of the district considering credibility when the of witness- es, by bound Iowa but are not them. 14(f)(7). R.App.P. brought to set

Land Bank this action aside sale the farm was the sheriff’s after $363.70,plus sold to William Reinhardt for undisputed ap- It is in costs. the $136.30 *2 673 time sale in hardship of the farm at that would result no proximate value substantial $50,000. purpose of the sale was rescinding bargain. The other than the was Ger judgment hart, in rem for satisfy showing Land Bank’s 372 to N.W.2d at 244. The to $77,362.39against Kenneth and Doris Rein- required made be is similar to that to set personal The Reinhardts had no hardt. a grounds aside contract on the of uncon- discharged liability they had been because scionability. bargain Id. A is unconsciona bankruptcy. in if it is such in ble as no man his senses and not under delusion would make on the one attorney no- and its received Land Bank hand, and as no honest and fair man would sale, but of the date and time of the tice accept Harrison, on the other. Smith v. and mistake did not through inadvertence 92, (Iowa 1982). 325 N.W.2d 94 primarily The mistake involved attend it. in the office filing calendaring miscues and persuaded are price We a sale of for $500 sup- He attorney. Bank’s was of Land property $50,000, case, valued at as in this on Land posed to attend the sheriff’s sale grossly inadequate. is It is clear enforce- in the fair market and bid Bank’s behalf ment of impose oppres- this sale would an property, plus costs. Due to of the value Moreover, sive burden on Land Bank. va- office, neglected mix-up in he to the his cation of the sale would in no result sub- Ultimately, Rein- William attend the sale. hardship rescinding stantial other than the was in the total amount of $500 hardt’s bid bargain by unconscionable obtained Wil- this amount accepted. Land Bank asserts liam Reinhardt. We conclude the district grossly inadequate and the sheriff was setting court was correct in aside the sale. failing postpone by his discretion to abused conditioned, however, upon This order is the sale. paying appel- Land Bank the district and costs, discre- disputed including expenses It is not the sheriff had late court all sale tion to set aside the sale. See Iowa Code attorney and fees assessed as costs. See disputed Nor is it a failure to Gerhart, 626.81. 372 N.W.2d at 246. § properly may exercise this discretion be AFFIRMED. See, grounds setting e.g., for aside a sale. Co., 219 Iowa

Francis v. Todd & Kraft HABHAB, J., concurs. 672, 676, 249, (1935). 259 N.W. 252 The rule, however, general is that a unilateral SACKETT, J., specially concurs and by the mistake of fact or a mistake of law dissents. mortgagee at a foreclosure sale does not mortgagee sale. entitle the to set aside the SACKETT,Judge (concurring part in and Gerhart, 372 Bank v. See Farmers Sav. part). dissenting in 1985). 238, (Iowa 243 N.W.2d majority in all I would concur with the are, course, exceptions of to the There to except modify I would the order respects rule, general usually involving mistakes of Rein- pay to William provide defendant Foreman, Id.; fact or law. v. Crawford $2,500 his ex- of to cover hardt the sum 1000, 661, 664, N.W. 1001 127 Iowa 103 penses fees. and (1905). Although inadequacy of con- mere ground generally not of itself sideration is sale, setting Adams v.

for aside a sheriff’s 852, 853,

Morrison, 259 N.W. 219 Iowa

582, (1935), inade- grossly a sale for a 583

quate price may attacked. v. be Willis 689, 695, Bank, 261 Iowa

Farmers State 407, (1968). N.W.2d 411

155

However, equitable relief should be sale

granted only when enforcement of the oppressive burden on the impose

would an of the

party seeking and vacation vacation