Court Opinion

ID: 9614739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:27:51.328028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:38.544794
License: Public Domain

HOWELL, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with all aspects of the majority opinion *532except that portion which holds that the defendants were in default for failing to make the January 1973 payment of $50 although defendants had overpaid the monthly amounts due the sellers by $237.75.
I appreciate that other courts have held that contracts requiring monthly or yearly payments of a certain amount “or more” do not relieve the purchaser of paying the next due installment even though he has paid and the seller has accepted amounts in excess of the minimum payment. This question is a matter of first impression in this state.
I would agree with the trial court in the instant case that the defendants’ rights should not be subject to a forfeiture where they have paid more than the minimum amount required by the contract. A suit for strict foreclosure is an equitable proceeding and should be governed by equitable principles. It is inconceivable to me that a purchaser who has paid several months or years in advance on his purchase contract should be subject to a default and his interest in the contract forfeited if he fails to pay the next installment due. Under such rule a purchaser who is required, for example, to make his payment on the first day of each month and thereafter makes another payment in the same month is in default if he fails to make the payment due on the first of the following month.
I would hold that the defendants were not in default when they failed to make the January 1973 payment.
O’Connell, C. J., and Tongue, J., join in this opinion.