Court Opinion

ID: 9738563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:56:19.505146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:06.926077
License: Public Domain

BROWN, Judge
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the majority’s holding that by electing to have the Contract forfeited, Hooker may not enforce its terms with respect to outstanding payments for the time in which the appellees occupied the real estate but neglected to make full, or, in some months, even partial payments. I believe that the forfeiture provision at issue terminates the Contract prospectively and has no bearing on Hooker’s right to collect payments for the appellees’ prior occupation of the real estate. The Contract sets forth several events of default. One such event is failure to pay. Another is the purchasers abandonment of the real estate.
The Contract sets forth several events of default. One such event is failure to pay. Another is the purchaser’s abandonment of the real estate.
*661Appellees failed to make the required monthly payments beginning in November 1995, so, according to the contract, they were in default at that time. In 1996, they made no payments for six months and only partial payments for the remaining six months. In 1997 they made no payments and abandoned the property in April of that year. Between November 1995 and April 1997 they had possession of the real estate without fully paying for such possession.
As for the payments actually made by appellees, the Contract provides that “Seller shall have the right to retain all amounts paid by Purchaser toward the Purchase Price as an agreed payment for Purchasers possession of the Real Estate prior to such default.” Appellant’s Appendix at 36 (emphasis supplied). This language gave Hooker the right to retain the actual payments that had been made prior to the default, which default first occurred in November 1995 and then occurred again in each month thereafter that full payment was not made. The Contract also states that “Such retention shall not bar Seller’s right to recover damages for unlawful detention of the Real Estate after default.” Id. (emphasis supplied). I believe the majority incorrectly construes the phrase “after default” to mean “after abandonment” and in so doing ignores the obvious damage the Seller has suffered under the contract when appellees continued to possess the real estate without making the required payments for such possession.
Under the majority’s interpretation, if the appellees had made all the payments they were required to make but then abandoned the property, Hooker would be entitled to keep those payments. I agree that this is what the Contract says. But I disagree that the Contract says that appel-lees are relieved from making those payments during the time they are in possession and prior to any abandonment and cancellation of the Contract. To hold as the majority does rewards the appellees for failing to make the required contractual payments while they possessed the real estate. Appellees are thereby rewarded for their own default.
Further, the Contract provides that “All of Sellers remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive. Failure of Seller to exercise any remedy at any time shall not operate as a waiver of the right of Seller to exercise any remedy for the same or any subsequent default at any time thereafter.” Id. at 37. Therefore the seller could retain all amounts paid by the purchaser prior to and after each occurrence of default; recover damages for unlawful detention of the real estate after default; recover unpaid taxes, insurance, for waste . committed on the real estate, and “... for any other damages suffered by Seller.... ” Id. at 36.
As held in Powers v. Ford, 415 N.E.2d 734, 736 (Ind.Ct.App.1981), forfeiture serves to cancel and terminate the continued existence of the contract at issue. However the seller is not prevented from claiming damages incurred prior to the contract’s termination.
As a further note, both the trial courts and the majority’s reference to a lack of evidence as to any loss in value of the real estate is misplaced. Whereas here forfeiture was the elected remedy, the seller cannot claim a deficiency for any difference in value of the property from the time the contract is entered into and the time of forfeiture. Any possible decrease in the value of the property is irrelevant.
For these reasons I respectfully dissent and would reverse the trial court’s holding that Hooker is not entitled to recover the *662payments appellees failed to make while they occupied the real estate.