Title: ROBERTS v MORIN

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 81-448 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1982 STANLEY J. ROBERTS and DONNA J. ROBERTS, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, MARY JANE BORIN, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of Missoula, The Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: J e f f r e y H. Langton, Hamk?ton, Montana For Respondent : Morales, Volinkaty & Harr, Missoula, Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : January 1 4 , 1982 Decided: May 13, 1982 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. A p p e l l a n t s , S t a n l e y and Donna R o b e r t s , brought t h i s s u i t i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e County of Missoula, t o o b t a i n r e l i e f from t h e f o r f e i t u r e of t h e i r r e a l e s t a t e c o n t r a c t with r s s p o n d e n t , Mary J a n e Morin, o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t o o b t a i n damages f o r breach of t h a t c o n t r a c t . A f t e r a nonjury t r i a l , t h e D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d judgment i n f a v o r of Morin and awarded her t h e p r o p e r t y and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount requested. The c o u r t t h e r e a f t e r e n t e r e d an amended judgment j i v i n g t h e R o b e r t s e s a c r e d i t f o r expenses i n c u r r e d i n making improvements t o t h e p r o p e r t y while t h e y were i n p o s s e s s i o n . The R o b e r t s e s appeal from t h e amended judgment. Morin's p r e d e c e s s o r , Morin Lumber Company, o r i g i n a l l y s o l d t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y i n 1974 t o a Mr. Woolhiser by a c o n t r a c t f o r deed. The s a l e s p r i c e was $9,50Q. A downpay- rnent of $8(ZI0 was made, l e a v i n g a b a l a n c e of $8,9(ZI0 payable a t 8% i n t e r e s t i n monthly i n s t a l l m e n t s of $72.78 u n t i l September 20, 1982, a t which time t h e f u l l b a l a n c e , includ- ing i n t e r e s t , was t o become due. The c o n t r a c t provided, i n p a r t , t h a t i n t h e e v e n t of b u y e r ' s breach and continuance of t h e breach f o r s i x t y d a y s Lollowing w r i t t e n n o t i c e of breach m a i l e d , " t o t h e buyer a t 1318 Defoe S t r e e t , M i s s o u l a , Montana, r e t u r n r e c e i p t r e q u e s t e d , o r such o t h e r a d d r e s s a s t h e buyer s h a l l p r o v i d e t o t h e s e l l e r from time t o time," t h e s e l l e r c o u l d , a t h i s o p t i o n , d e c l a r e a f o r f e i t u r e and r e t a k e p o s s e s s i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y o r pursue a l l o t h e r remedies a v a i l a b l e a t law. The c o n t r a c t a l s o provided t h a t t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n any l i t i g a t i o n would be e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s of s u i t and t h a t no assignment would be p e r m i t t e d without t h e s e l l e r ' s w r i t t e n consent. Not long a f t e r Woolhiser e n t e r e d i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t , he a s s i g n e d h i s i n t e r e s t t o A l b e r t and Emma Roberts, t h e p a r e n t s of S t a n l e y Roberts, The assignment was consented t o by Morin Lumber Company. L a t e r , i n December 1976, A l b e r t and Emma Roberts a s s i g n e d t h e c o n t r a c t t o t h e i r son S t a n l e y and h i s wife Donna. A t t h e time of t h i s assignment, t h e p r i n c i p l e balance due t o Morin was $8,299.36. Mor i n ' s predecessor consented t o t h i s assiynment. While a p p e l l a n t s owned t h e p r o p e r t y , t h e y r e s i d e d t h e r e and made v a r i o u s improvements, which t h e c o u r t determined t o be valued a t $4,981. On O c t o b e r 1 2 , 1 9 7 7 , a p p e l l a n t s e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t f o r t h e s a l e of t h e p r o p e r t y t o Warren and Kathy I v e r s o n . The c o n t r a c t provided t h a t t h e I v e r s o n s would assume t h e Robertses' o b l i g a t i o n s t o Morin and t h a t upon completion of t h e I v e r s o n s ' o b l i g a t i o n s t o t h e R o b e r t s e s , t h e R o b e r t s e s would a s s i g n t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n t h e Morin c o n t r a c t t o t h e I v e r s o n s . Pursuant t o t h i s agreement an assignment of c o n t r a c t was drawn up t o be placed i n escrow and a c o n s e n t t o assignment was drawn and signed by Morin and placed i n escrow with t h e assignment. Morin was aware a t t h i s time t h a t t h e R o b e r t s e s were s e l l i n g t o t h e I v e r s o n s on a s e p a r a t e c o n t r a c t , Unknown t o t h e R o b e r t s e s t h e t i t l e company m i s t a k e n l y f i l e d t h e assignment of record b e f o r e d e l i v e r i n g t h e con- t r a c t and r e l a t e d p a p e r s t o escrow. F u r t h e r , t h e escrow a g e n t of t h e p a r t i e s t r e a t e d t h e c o n t r a c t a s p r e s e n t l y a s s i g n e d and s e t up s e p a r a t e escrow f i l e s f o r t h e Roberts- I v e r s o n c o r l t r a c t and t h e Iversori-Morin c o n t r a c t . The r e s u l t was t h a t t h e I v e r s o n s made payments through escrow t o t h e R o b e r t s e s and payments through escrow t o Morin. Personal and f i n a n c i a l problems b e s e t t h e I v e r s o n s i n 1979, r e s u l t i n g i n t h e i r s e p a r a t i o n and f a l l i n g behind on t h e escrow payments. The I v e r s o n s missed a payment t o Morin e a r l y i n 1979, b u t no a c t i o n was taken on t h e p a r t of Morin t o e n f o r c e t h e time of t h e e s s e n c e c l a u s e i n t h e c o n t r a c t . The I v e r s o n s ' l a s t payment t o Morin was on J a n u a r y 1 7 , 1980. Morin s e n t a n o t i c e of d e f a u l t t o t h e I v e r s o n s a t 1318 Defoe S t r e e t a f t e r t h e I v e r s o n s missed t h e i r payment. L a t e r , upon e x p i r a t i o n of t h e sixty-day d e f a u l t p e r i o d , Morin s e n t a n o t i c e of f o r f e i t u r e t o t h e I v e r s o n s a t t h e Defoe S t r e e t a d d r e s s and took p o s s e s s i o n . Meanwhile, t h e R o b e r t s e s , though having t r o u b l e with t h e t i m e l i n e s s of t h e payments from t h e I v e r s o n s , r e c e i v e d payments u n t i l J u l y 1980. Morin s e n t no n o t i c e of d e f a u l t o r f o r f e i t u r e t o t h e R o b e r t s e s , nor d i d t h e I v e r s o n s inform t h e R o b e r t s e s t h a t t h e y had d e f a u l t e d on t h e Morin c o n t r a c t u n t i l J u l y o r August 1980. O n August 18, 1980, t h e Robertses' a t t o r n e y r e q u e s t e d a s t a t e m e n t of t h e b a l a n c e due from M o r i n ' s a t t o r n e y and o f f e r e d t o c u r e t h e d e f a u l t . T h i s o f f e r was r e j e c t e d . O n September 1 0 , 1980, R o b e r t s e s ' a t t o r n e y s e n t a w r i t t e n t e n d e r of payment t o Morin and t o her a t t o r n e y , o f f e r i n g t o pay t h e amount i n d e f a u l t and r e l a t e d c o s t s t o g e t h e r with i n t e r e s t from t h e d a t e of t h e l a s t payment by I v e r s o n s t o t h e d a t e of t e n d e r , a t o t a l of $7,552.61 p l u s i n t e r e s t , i n exchange f o r a deed from Morin. T h i s o f f e r was r e j e c t e d , b u t t h e amount of t h e o f f e r was n o t d i s p u t e d . O n September 17, 1980, t h e R o b e r t s e s commenced s u i t t o compel lvlorin t o a c c e p t t h e i r t e n d e r and d e l i v e r her deed, o r f o r damages. Throughout t h e proceedings, Hobertses have o f f e r e d t o pay t h e above-stated amount, The following i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r review: 1. Were t h e R o b e r t s e s e n t i t l e d t o n o t i c e p r i o r to Morin d e f a u l t i n g t h e I v e r s o n c o n t r a c t ? 2. Once t h e R o b e r t s e s had n o t i c e of t h e d e f a u l t and o f f e r e d t o t e n d e r f u l l compensation t o Morin, should t h e t r i a l c o u r t have denied a f o r f e i t u r e of t h e c o n t r a c t ? The f i r s t i s s u e p r e s e n t e d by a p p e l l a n t s is whether t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o n o t i c e p r i o r t o Morin d e f a u l t i n g t h e I v e r s o n c o n t r a c t . The c o n t r a c t p r o v i d e s t h a t n o t i c e of d e f a u l t be s e n t t o t h e "buyer" a t 1318 Defoe. Morin i n t e r - p r e t e d t h i s t o Inean t h a t n o t i c e of d e f a u l t had t o be s e n t o n l y t o t h e a d d r e s s of t h e "buyer" named i n t h e o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e assignments. The problem w i t h t h i s t y p e of n o t i c e is t h a t i t f a i l s i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n t o t a k e i n t o account t h e R o b e r t s e s i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y . Although t h e r e is no s p e c i f i c c a s e o r s t a t u t e d e a l i n g d i r e c t l y with t h i s s i t u a t i o n , t h e r e is an analogy i n t h e law t h a t p r o v i d e s a s u f f i c i e n t r a t i o n a l e f o r n o t i c e t o be g i v e n i n t h i s i n s t a n c e . I n Chambers v. Cranston ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 16 Wash.App. 543, 558 P.2d 271, i t was h e l d : "The purchaser i n an e x e c u t o r y r e a l e s t a t e c o n t r a c t h a s an i n t e r e s t which he can mort- g age Sigman v. Stevens-Norton, Inc. 70 inJash,2d 915, 425 P.2d 891 (1967); Nelson v. B a i l e y , 54 Wash.2d 161, 338 P.2d 757, 73 A. L.R, 2d 1400 (1959) . I f t h e purchaser h a s m o r t g a g e d h i s i n t e r e s t , t h e m o r t g a g e e i s e n t i t l e d t o n o t i c e of f o r f e i t u r e i f t h e s e l l e r knows of t h e mortgage, and t h e mort- gagee h a s t h e r i g h t t o t e n d e r payments t o t h e s e l l e r n e c e s s a r y t o p r o t e c t h i s s e c u r i t y , i . e . , t o keep t h e c o n t r a c t i n e f f e c t . " 558 P.2d a t 273. See a l s o , MacFadden v. Walker ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 97 Cal .Rptr. 537, 488 P.2d 1353. The s i t u a t i o n p r e s e n t e d h e r e and t h e s i t u a t i o n p r e s e n t e d above a r e not s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i s s i m i l a r . Here, t h e R o b e r t s e s a s s i g n e d t h e d u t y of paying on t h e Morin c o n t r a c t t o t h e I v e r s o n s b u t d i d n o t a s s i g n t h e i r i n t e r e s t t o t h e I v e r s o n s . F u r t h e r , t h e I v e r s o n s d i d n o t "assume" i n t h e s t r i c t l e g a l s e n s e t h e c o n t r a c t of t h e R o b e r t s e s b u t merely a g r e e d , i n w r i t i n g , t o pay Morin d i r e c t l y t h e amount t h a t t h e R o b e r t s e s had been i n i t i a l l y paying according t o t h e i r c o n t r a c t assignment. The f a c t t h a t t h e assignment was d u l y recorded by t h e t i t l e company does n o t a f f e c t t h e i n t e n t of t h e p a r t i e s , and it h a s no l e g a l e f f e c t on t h e t r a n s a c t i o n i t s e l f . 66 Am.Jur.2d Records and Recording Laws, s e c . 98. The importarlt s i m i l a r i t y l i e s i n t h e f a c t t h a t h e r e , a s i n Chambers, s u p r a , t h e r e was a r e t a i n e d i n t e r e s t i n t h e l a n d . I n Chambers, t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t because C i t i z e n s Savings and Loan A s s o c i a t i o n was t h e mortgagee it had ". . . t h e r i g h t t o n o t i c e of d e f a u l t and t o an o p p o r t u n i t y t o keep t h e c o n t r a c t i n e f f e c t . . ." 558 P.2d a t 274. The R o b e r t s e s should have had t h a t same o p p o r t u n i t y . They were e n t i t l e d t o a n o t i c e of d e f a u l t because t h e y r e t a i n e d an i n t e r e s t , s i m i l a r t o a mortgagee's i n t e r e s t , i n t h e p r o p e r t y , and Morin was aware of t h a t i n t e r e s t . The second i s s u e is whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t should have denied a f o r f e i t u r e when t h e R o b e r t s e s o f f e r e d t o t e n d e r f u l l compensation t o Morin. A d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s i s s u e should be premised with t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t " e q u i t y a b h o r s f o r f e i t u r e s . " Yellowstone County v. Wight (1944) , 115 Mont. 411, 145 P.2d 516; Sharp v. Holthusen ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - Mont. - , 616 P.2d 374, 37 St.Rep. 1651. Here, t h e r e a r e b o t h s t a t u t o r y and e q u i t a b l e r e a s o n s t o deny f o r f e i t u r e o f t h e c o n t r a c t . Montana h a s a s p e c i f i c s t a t u t e d e a l i n g w i t h f o r f e i - t u r e . S e c t i o n 28-1-104, MCA, p r o v i d e s : " R e l i e f f r o m f o r f e i t u r e . W h e n e v e r b y t h e -- t e r m s of an o b l i g a t i o n a p a r t y t h e r e t o i n c u r s a f o r f e i t u r e o r a l o s s i n t h e n a t u r e o f a f o r f e i t u r e by r e a s o n o f h i s f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h i t s p r o v i s i o n s , h e may b e r e l i e v e d t h e r e f r o m upon making f u l l c o m p e n s a t i o n t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y , e x c e p t i n c a s e o f a g r o s s l y n e g l i g e n t , w i l l £ u l , o r f r a u d u l e n t b r e a c h o f d u t y . " T h i s C o u r t h a s i n t e r p r e t e d s e c t i o n 28-1-104, MCA, i n numerous c a s e s . I n Y e l l o w s t o n e County v. Wight, s u p r a , w e " S e c t i o n 8658, R e v i s e d Codes [now 28-1-104, MCA] , was e n a c t e d f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f o b l i g o r s whose f a i l u r e t o p u n c t u a l l y p e r f o r m would r e s u l t i n l o s s t o them i n t h e m a t t e r s i n r e s p e c t t o which t h e y h a v e c o n t r a c t e d . The i n t e n t i o n o f t h e L e g i s l a t u r e i n e n a c t i n g t h e s t a t u t e was t h a t it s h o u l d b e o p e r a t i v e and t h a t it s h o u l d be g i v e n f u l l f o r c e and e f f e c t when t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n a n y c a s e g a v e it a p p l i c a t i o n . The i n t e n t i o n o f t h e l a w under t h i s s t a t u t e is t h a t a f o r f e i t u r e s h o u l d n o t be n e e d l e s s l y e n f o r c e d . The c o u r t s h a v e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a s t h e p o l i c y o f l a w i n t h e a b s e n c e o f s t a t u t e . The r u l e a s it h a s found e x p r e s s i o n i n c o u r t d e c i s i o n s g e n e r a l l y is t h a t b o t h i n l a w and i n e q u i t y f o r f e i t u r e s a r e a b h o r r e d . " 1 4 5 P.2d a t 518. See a l s o , P a r r o t v. Heller ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. 212, 557 P.2d 819, and S h a r p v. H o l t h u s e n , s u p r a , f o r a r e a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h e above s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t r u l e d t h a t t h e R o b e r t s e s had n o t a p p e a l e d t o t h e c o n s c i e n c e o f t h e c o u r t and c i t e d s e c t i o n 28-1-104, IvlCA, and F r a t t v . D a n i e l s - J o n e s ( 1 9 1 3 ) , 47 Mont. 487, 1 3 3 P. 700, a s a u t h o r i t y . The C o u r t i n F r a t t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t o i n v o k e t h e a n t i - f o r f e i t u r e s t a t u t e a p a r t y must a p p e a l t o t h e c o n s c i e n c e o f a c o u r t o f e q u i t y . While t h i s Inay i n d e e d be t r u e , t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e l a w s i n c e t h e r u l i n g i n F r a t t h a s changed d r a m a t i c a l l y . What a p p e a l s t o t h e c o n s c i e n c e o f a c o u r t i n e q u i t y i n 1 9 1 3 is n o t n e c e s - s a r i l y t h e same a s what a p p e a l s t o t h e c o n s c i e n c e o f a c o u r t of e q u i t y i n 1982. I n 1 9 1 3 , t h e l e g a l c o n c e p t t h a t e q u i t y a b h o r s f o r f e i t u r e s was i n its i n f a n c y , P r e s e n t l y , t h e c0ncep.t is one t h a t is c o n s i d e r e d a x i o m a t i c . Under t h e p r e s e n t s t a t e o f t h e law and t h e c u r r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 28-1-104, MCA, F r a t t v. D a n i e l s - J o n e s , s u p r a , is no l o n g e r t h e p r o p e r a u t h o r i t y . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o r u l e d t h a t t h e R o b e r t s e s were g r o s s l y n e g l i g e n t and t h e r e f o r e u n a b l e t o a v a i l t h e m s e l v e s t h e u s e o f s e c t i o n 28-1-104, MCA, f o r f a i l i n g t o remain a b r e a s t of I v e r s o n s ' d e l i n q u e n c y . T h e r e is n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d s u p p o r t i n g t h e r u l i n g t h a t t h e R o b e r t s e s were g r o s s l y n e g l i g e n t i n t h e i r d u t y under t h e terms o f t h e c o n t r a c t . The f a c t t h a t t h e R o b e r t s e s were h a v i n g t r o u b l e c o l l e c t i n g from t h e I v e r s o n s d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y impute t o them t h e knowledge t h a t t h e I v e r s o n s had d e f a u l t e d on t h e i r Morin ob- l i g a t i o n . I n d e e d , w i t h o u t n o t i c e from Morin t h a t a d e f a u l t e x i s t e d , t h e y c o u l d n o t h a v e been e x p e c t e d t o c o r r e c t t h e d e f a u l t , A l s o , t h e r e c o r d shows t h a t upon l e a r n i n g o f t h e d e f a u l t , t h e y i m m e d i a t e l y c o n t a c t e d t h e i r a t t o r n e y , a s k e d lvIorin f o r a p a y o f f f i g u r e , and made a w r i t t e n o f f e r t o p e r f o r m . Morin, t h r o u g h h e r a t t o r n e y , r e j e c t e d t h i s o f f e r . A s f o r M o r i n ' s r e a s o n s b e h i n d t h e r e j e c t i o n , s h e t e s t i f i e d : "Q, Now, t o your knowledge, d o e i t h e r you o r your a t t o r n e y o b j e c t t o t h e amount o f f e r e d ? O r you j u s t o b j e c t e d t o t a k i n g a n y amount o f money? A. I j u s t o b j e c t e d . I j u s t wanted t h e house. I l Q . To your knowledge h a s t h e p r o p e r t y a p p r e c i a t e d i n v a l u e s i n c e it was s o l d i n 1974? A, Yes, i t ' s a much b e t t e r p r o p e r t y now." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d .) There a r e i n s t a n c e s where a p a r t y who f a i l s t o perform cannot u t i l i z e s e c t i o n 28-1-104, MCA, b u t t h i s is n o t one of t h o s e i n s t a n c e s , W e f i n d t h a t t h e R o b e r t s e s were n o t g r o s s l y n e g l i g e n t i n t h e i r d u t y t o Morin and c l e a r l y f a l l w i t h i n t h e parameters of s e c t i o n 28-1-104, MCA. The a p p l i c a t i o n of e q u i t y t o deny f o r f e i t u r e h a s been used by t h i s Court and c o u r t s of o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . I n S t a t e ex r e l . Howeth v. D. A. Davidson & Co. ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 163 Mont. 355, 517 P,2d 722, we s t a t e d : "Equity w i l l i n t e r c e d e i n c a s e s where f o r f e i - t u r e of t h e p u r c h a s e r ' s e q u i t a b l e t i t l e is provided by t h e purchase c o n t r a c t i n t h e e v e n t of h i s d e f a u l t . I f t h e d e f a u l t i n g purchaser can make a showing t h a t he is e q u i t a b l y e n t i t l e d t o such r e l i e f and t h a t h i s breach of d u t y was n o t g r o s s l y n e g l i g e n t , w i l l f u l o r f r a u d u l e n t , t h e c o u r t s w i l l , i n p r o p e r c a s e s , r e l i e v e t h e d e f a u l t i n g purchaser from t h e f o r f e i t u r e . " 517 P.2d a t 730. The Supreme Court of Hawaii i n J e n k i n s v. Wise (Haw, 1 9 7 8 ) , 574 P.2d 1337, s t a t e d : ". . . Accordingly, where t h e v e n d e e ' s breach has n o t been due t o g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e , o r t o d e l i b e r a t e o r b a d - f a i t h conduct, on h i s p a r t , and t h e vendor can reasonably and a d e q u a t e l y be compensated f o r h i s i n j u r y , c o u r t s i n e q u i t y w i l l g e n e r a l l y g r a n t r e l i e f a g a i n s t f o r f e i t u r e and d e c r e e s p e c i f i c performance of t h e agreement. [ C i t a t i o n s omitted.] . . ." 574 P.2d a t 1341. Also, i n MacFadden v. Walker (1971) , 97 Cal ,Rptr. 537, 488 P.2d 1353, t h e C a l i f o r n i a Court h e l d : ". . . A s we p o i n t e d o u t i n t h e B a r k i s c a s e , allowing t h e d e f a u l t i n g vendee t o c u r e h i s d e f a u l t and perform t h e c o n t r a c t may o f t e n be t h e f a i r e s t s o l u t i o n , f o r t h e u n j u s t e n r i c h - ment of t h e vendor t h a t is precluded by r e s t i t u t i o n of t h e e x c e s s of p a r t payments over t h e damages caused by t h e breach may b e a r l i t t l e o r no r e l a t i o n t o t h e f o r f e i t u r e imposed on t h e vendee i f h i s r i g h t t o perform t h e c o n t r a c t is t e r m i n a t e d . ' A vendee i n d e f a u l t who is seeking t o keep t h e c o n t r a c t a l i v e , however, is i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o s e c u r e r e l i e f t h a n one who is seeking t o recover back t h e e x c e s s of what he h a s paid over t h e amount n e c e s s a r y t o g i v e t h e vendor t h e b e n e f i t of h i s b a r g a i n a f t e r performance under t h e c o n t r a c t h a s t e r m i n a t e d . I n t h e l a t t e r s i t u a t i o n it may be so d i f f i c u l t t o compute t h e v e n d o r ' s damages t h a t t h e vendee w i l l be unable t o prove t h a t t h e vendor w i l l be u n j u s t l y e n r i c h e d by allowing him t o keep a l l t h e money t h a t h a s been paid . . . I II 488 P.2d a t 1356. Here, e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e s m u s t be invoked t o a c h i e v e a j u s t r e s u l t . The e q u i t a b l e r e a s o n s t o deny f o r f e i t u r e a r e q u i t e a p p a r e n t . In comparing t h e e q u i t i e s of t h i s c a s e , t h e D i s t r i c t Court f a i l e d t o i n c l u d e one v e r y important f a c t o r . The f a c t o r n o t included i n t h e comparison was t h a t Morin would r e c e i v e t h e p r o p e r t y , n o t a t its 1974 v a l u e , b u t a t its g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e d 1982 v a l u e . Morin's predecessor i n i n t e r e s t s o l d t h e p r o p e r t y t o t h e o r i g i n a l buyer f o r $9,500 i n 1974. By t h e time t h e R o b e r t s e s s o l d t h e p r o p e r t y i n 1977, t h e v a l u e had i n c r e a s e d t o $23,@0O. I f Morin were allowed t o keep -the p r o p e r t y , s h e would not o n l y have r e c e i v e d $2,027.21, o r 21 p e r c e n t of t h e o r i g i n a l s a l e s p r i c e , b u t she would be enhanced by t h e i n c r e a s e d v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y . O n t h e o t h e r hand, t h e R o b e r t s e s would r e t a i n o n l y t h e arnount received on t h e I v e r s o n s c o n t r a c t , amounting t o about $7,080. Though t h e R o b e r t s e s may have recovered roughly 47 p e r c e n t of t h e i r o r i g i n a l e q u i t y , t h e y have been denied t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e i n c r e a s e d v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y . By applying s e c t i o n 28-1-104, MCA, t o deny a f o r f e i - t u r e , and by r e q u i r i n g t h e R o b e r t s e s to make f u l l payment o f t h e b a l a n c e of t h e o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t t o Morin, t h e e q u i t l e s i n t h i s c a s e a r e r e s o l v e d - - t h a t is, Morln r e c e i v e s t h e bene- f i t of t h e o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t , and t h e R o b e r t s e s r e t a i n t h e l a n d , less t h e l r payment t o Morin. F u r t h e r , t h e R o b e r t s e s a r e o b l i g a t e d t o Morin f o r any expenses i n c u r r e d by Morin r e i a t l n y t o t h e I v e r s o n s ' possession o f t h e p r o p e r t y . T h i s would c o n s i s t of u t i l i t y expenses, maintenance e x p e n s e s , r e p a i r expenses and d e l i n q u e n t t a x e s . It d o e s n o t i n c l u d e , however, any improvements made by Morin while t h i s a c t i o n was pending. See, L a r r y C. l v e r s o n , I n c . v . Bouma ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . - - , 639 P.2d 47, 38 St .Rep. 1911. Morln is r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court is r e v e r s e d , and t h e c a u s e is remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . W e concur: a&&,@- Chief J u s t i c e c-e&s?,