Court Opinion

ID: 9699119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:11:04.843269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:49.856994
License: Public Domain

Fairchild, J.
(concurring). Appellant vendees seek restitution from respondent vendor for unjust enrichment in the event that vendees fail to perform the land contract within the period of redemption allowed by the court. They point out that the amount of appellants’ remaining obligation under the land contract has been determined at $648,769.41, *629plus interest from June 1, 1959. If appellants fail to redeem for that amount, respondent’s ownership of the property will be relieved of all interest appellants had in it. The property has a fair market value as determined by the court of between $875,000 and $900,000. This, appellants claim, will unjustly enrich respondent by some $225,000, less interest accruing after June 1, 1959.
Appellants argue that the “equitable right of the defaulting vendee to a remedy of unjust enrichment has been gaining recognition in many jurisdictions,” and suggest that this court approved the principle in Schwartz v. Syver (1953), 264 Wis. 526, 59 N. W. (2d) 489, and Long Investment Co. v. O’Donnell (1958), 3 Wis. (2d) 291, 88 N. W. (2d) 674.
In the Long Investment Co. Case, defendant agreed in writing to sell land to plaintiff. Plaintiff made a down payment, but the sale was subject to certain contingencies, and transfer of possession would take place upon full payment and conveyance of title. . Later, defendant sold the land to a third party for more than the contract price. Plaintiff sued, and defendant claimed, on various grounds, that he had been relieved of any obligation to convey to the plaintiff. The court decided in favor of plaintiff and awarded damages which included the amount of plaintiff’s down payment, as well as the difference between the price received from the third party and the contract price. It was said, at page 299, with reference to the down payment: “To allow the defendant seller, or his agent, to retain the same would constitute an unjust enrichment.” The Schwartz Case was cited.
This decision has no application to the present case. The gain reaped by defendant vendor as a result of his own repudiation of his contract was established beyond question.
In the Schwartz Case, defendant agreed in writing to sell property to plaintiffs for $9,500. Plaintiffs made a $500 payment of earnest money, and transfer of possession was *630evidently contemplated in the future. Plaintiffs failed to make required payments, and defendant sold the property for $11,000 to a third party. Plaintiffs sued for the return of their earnest money, claiming breach by defendant. The court, however, decided that it was the plaintiffs who had breached. In affirming the judgment, this court decided that plaintiffs had not made out a case for restitution because, notwithstanding the better price received in the second sale, the earnest money was comparatively small and they failed to prove that the amount of the earnest money exceeded just compensation for defendant’s loss due to plaintiffs’ repudiation. This court did, however, say at page 531:
“We think it well to say now that we are in accord with the trend of modern decisions which recognize that when the result of retention of moneys paid upon a contract by a vendee who later repudiates his obligation is a clear, unjust enrichment of the vendor, the vendor may be required to return such part of the payments as exceeds the loss which the vendee’s default causes him.”
Portions of discussions of the principle by text writers were quoted.
I do not understand that in declining appellants’ request for restitution in the case before us we are withdrawing any portion of the statement above quoted. We do not, however, consider the principle applicable to the facts of this case.
Here we have a land contract with an immediate transfer of possession to the appellant vendees, with a substantial period of time within which to pay the purchase price. Title was retained by the respondent as security. The parties entered into the land contract with the knowledge that in the event of default by the appellants, and the institution of an action by respondent for a declaration that appellants’ rights are at an end, the court will fix a period within which appellants may preserve their interest in the property by completing performance. The circuit court has done this in the instant case. Appellants ask that the court impose an addi*631tional condition upon the foreclosure of their rights — -that the court will create an additional protection not found in their contract by requiring, in effect, that the respondent repurchase the property at a value fixed by the court.
It seems to us that in the absence of special circumstances not found in the present case, the right to redeem during a reasonable period of time fixed by the court gives a defaulting vendee all the protection to which he is equitably entitled. If appellants cannot, by sale or new financial arrangements, take advantage of the opportunity to protect themselves by redemption within the period given, it would not be equitable to compel respondent to repurchase the property at the value fixed by the court. Inability to redeem would suggest that the property is not worth as much as the court determined, or at least that such value cannot be readily realized in money.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Chief Justice Martin, Mr. Justice Brown, Mr. Justice Currie, and Mr. Justice Hallows join in this opinion.