Court Opinion

ID: 9616289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:45:16.935448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:56.638732
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. This is an equitable proceeding and we are permitted to review both the law and the facts.1
*711While the complete record is not before us, there is, in my opinion, enough of the facts to enable us to see the error in the judgment as made. Those facts show that Mr. Kay only claimed $5,000 as damages: “The sale of the apartments to Wood was for $125,000.00. Plaintiff had purchased the apartments for $120,000.00. If Wood had continued to pay on the contract as he agreed to, I would have received $5,000.00.” 2
The facts set out in the main opinion show the benefits received by Mr. Kay:
Down payment — cash $ 6,000.00
Paid on Mortgage 14,846.00
Improvements made to the property 5,802.30
Total paid to or for the benefit of Mr. Kay $26,648.30
Of the $14,846 paid on the 'mortgage which Kay would have had to pay had it not been for’the sale, $4,663.05 was applied to a reduction of the mortgage and it was this sum which the court allowed to Mr. Wood when it cancelled his contract.
The benefits to Kay were $26,648.30
Less award to Wood 4,663.05
$21,985.25
In addition thereto Wood paid taxes of $1,400 and insurance amounting to $388.
The net income of Mr. Wood before the expenses of debt service was $7,294.96.
The forfeiture would then be: $21,985.25
Less net income 7,294.96
Net amount of forfeiture: $14,690.29
There was no loss of bargain for the reason that the court found the fair market value of the property to be $132,000 at the time of repossession which was $7,000 more than the contract price. This $14,690.29 forfeiture just seems to me to be so unjust that I cannot subscribe to such a judgment. To allow a forfeiture of all amounts paid to and on behalf of Mr. Kay as well as giving the property back to him in an improved condition seems unconscionable to me.3.
In the case of Jacobson v. Swan,4 this court in speaking of a contract provision relating to liquidated damages said:
The parties have a right to so contract and such right should not be lightly interfered with. It is only when the forfeiture would be so grossly excessive as to be entirely disproportionate to any possible loss that might have been contemplated, so that to enforce it would shock the conscience, that a court of equity will refuse to enforce the provision.
My conscience is shocked. I would reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial.
MAUGHAN, Justice, concurs in the views expressed in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice ELLETT.

. Article VIII, Section 9, Utah Constitution.

. Answer to interrogatories.

. Perkins v. Spencer, 121 Utah 468, 243 P.2d 446 (1952).

.3 Utah 2d 59, 278 P.2d 294 (1954).