Lewis v. Premium Investment Corp.
568 S.E.2d 361, 351 S.C. 167 (2002)
Rule of Law:
In an installment land contract, a court of equity may relieve a defaulting purchaser from a strict forfeiture provision and grant a right of redemption when fairness and justice so demand, treating the forfeiture clause as an unenforceable penalty.
Facts:
- On October 29, 1976, William Lewis entered into an installment sales contract with Premium Investment Corporation to purchase a lot.
- The contract stipulated that if Lewis defaulted on a payment for over 30 days, Premium could terminate the contract and retain all payments as rent.
- Four months after signing, Lewis placed a mobile home on the lot for his family and began residing there.
- Lewis made consistent monthly payments for nearly 12 years, from 1976 until July 1988, at which point he had paid 141 of approximately 182 installments.
- After July 1988, Lewis ceased making payments, at which time he owed a balance of $2,440.14 on the original $7,500 contract price.
- In October 1989, Premium sent a notice of cancellation via certified mail, which was returned 'unclaimed'.
- In 1992, Lewis's wife inquired about resuming payments, but Premium's representative passed away before any agreement was made.
- On August 27, 1996, Lewis, through his attorney, attempted to pay the outstanding balance with a check for $2,451.34, which Premium refused.
Procedural Posture:
- William Lewis (Purchaser) initiated an action for breach of contract and specific performance against Premium Investment Corporation (Seller) before a master-in-equity (trial court).
- Premium Investment Corp. counterclaimed, seeking to terminate the contract based on Lewis's default.
- The master-in-equity found in favor of Premium, ruling that Lewis was in default and that the contract's forfeiture clause was enforceable.
- Lewis, as appellant, appealed the master-in-equity's decision to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Lewis had an equitable interest in the property which included a right of redemption that could not be waived by the contract.
- Premium Investment Corp., as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of South Carolina to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a purchaser under an installment land contract have an equitable right of redemption upon default, even when the contract contains a clear and unambiguous forfeiture clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Burnett
No. A purchaser under an installment land contract does possess an equitable interest in the property that includes a right of redemption upon default. While courts generally enforce clear and unambiguous contract terms, equity does not favor forfeitures or penalties. A forfeiture clause that is plainly disproportionate to the actual damages from a breach constitutes an unenforceable penalty. The court analogized the vendor-vendee relationship in an installment contract to the mortgagee-mortgagor relationship, where an equitable right of redemption is a well-established common law principle that protects the mortgagor. Therefore, there is no equitable reason to deny a similar right of redemption to a purchaser in an installment land contract in appropriate circumstances, bringing South Carolina law in line with the majority of other jurisdictions.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters the legal landscape for installment land contracts in South Carolina by treating them more like mortgages than simple executory contracts. It establishes a key protection for purchasers, preventing sellers from automatically enforcing harsh forfeiture clauses, especially when the purchaser has acquired substantial equity in the property. By recognizing an equitable right of redemption, the court subordinates the contract's literal terms to principles of fairness, requiring a case-by-case judicial analysis to prevent unjust enrichment of the seller. This precedent makes installment land contracts a less risky financing method for buyers and curtails the seller's ability to use forfeiture as a penalty.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Lewis v. Premium Investment Corp. (2002)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"