Court Opinion

ID: 9568460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:03:55.079681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:43:14.367820
License: Public Domain

ORME, Judge
(concurring in the result):
I believe all the attention given to the forfeiture provision in the contract and to the timing of the two notices, both here and at trial, largely misses the point. Even if we completely ignore the two notices that were sent, which is what we ought to do if they were ineffective to terminate Buyer’s interest nonjudieially, we have this situation: Buyer made only one payment under the contract. Buyer materially breached the contract by wholly failing, without excuse, to make the second payment due, in the amount of $56,-000. Buyer followed this breach by failing to make the third annual payment and the fourth annual payment, also without excuse and in material breach of its obligations under the contract. Without paying the substantial arrearage into court or even tendering the amount due, Buyer eventually sued for specific performance. Being in material breach of its obligations under the contract, without excuse and without having tendered its performance, Buyer was simply not entitled to specific performance of the contract. In turn, Sellers were entitled to have their title quieted against Buyer, which had lost its rights under the contract by its long-standing material breach and its failure to tender its performance.
Given the concessions made, the evidence adduced, and the jury’s special verdicts (aside from the unfounded one regarding Sellers’ efforts at effecting nonjudicial forfeiture), the foregoing is the basis on which I believe the judgment herein should be affirmed.