Mandle v. Owens
164 Ind. App. 607, 1975 Ind. App. LEXIS 1193, 330 N.E.2d 362 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract clause providing for the forfeiture of a fixed sum upon breach is presumed to be an unenforceable penalty, rather than an enforceable liquidated damages provision, when the actual damages are reasonably ascertainable and the stipulated sum is arbitrary and bears no relation to the anticipated loss.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs-appellants Mandles advertised their residence in Terre Haute, Indiana, for sale.
- Defendants-appellees Owenses examined the house and entered into an agreement with Mandles to purchase it for $30,000.
- Owenses provided a $300 earnest money check as a deposit.
- The final written agreement, signed on July 24, 1972, stipulated that if Owenses failed to complete the purchase, the $300 would be forfeited to Mandles.
- Relying on the sale, Mandles paid a $1,000 earnest money deposit on another home in Maryland.
- On August 8, 1972, Owens informed Mandles that they were backing out of the purchase because they had found another house they preferred.
- Mandles subsequently sold the property to a different buyer for $29,500.
- In order to sell the property after the breach, Mandles incurred a real estate brokerage fee of $2,065.
Procedural Posture:
- Mandles (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against Owenses (defendants) in an Indiana trial court for breach of a real estate contract, seeking damages in excess of the $300 deposit.
- The trial court found in favor of the defendants, Owenses, concluding that the forfeiture clause was a valid liquidated damages provision that constituted the sole remedy for the breach.
- The trial court entered a negative judgment against the plaintiffs, Mandles.
- Mandles, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District.
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 contract clause requiring the forfeiture of an earnest money deposit upon a buyer's breach limit the seller's recovery to that amount when the clause is deemed a penalty rather than a valid liquidated damages provision?
Opinions:
Majority - Lowdermilk, J.
No. A contract clause requiring the forfeiture of an earnest money deposit is an unenforceable penalty when it does not represent a good-faith attempt to estimate actual damages, and therefore it does not limit the seller's recovery to the stipulated amount. The court reasoned that there is a presumption that a lump sum stipulated in a contract is a penalty rather than liquidated damages. For a provision to be considered valid liquidated damages, the damages from a breach must have been uncertain at the time of contracting, and the stipulated amount must have been a reasonable, good-faith estimate of the potential loss. In this case, the damages resulting from the breach—namely the difference in sale price and the broker's commission—were not uncertain and could be proven with reasonable accuracy. The $300 deposit was an arbitrary figure that bore no relation to the actual or anticipated loss, making it a penalty. Because the clause is a penalty, it is unenforceable as a limitation on damages, and Mandles is entitled to recover their actual, proven damages.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the judicial scrutiny applied to forfeiture clauses in contracts, particularly in real estate transactions. It establishes that courts will look beyond the language of the contract (e.g., 'forfeited') to determine the true nature of the provision. The ruling solidifies the principle that a non-breaching party is entitled to be made whole and will not be limited to a nominal, arbitrary sum that does not reflect their actual losses. This precedent protects sellers from being under-compensated when a buyer's breach results in significant, provable damages that far exceed a small earnest money deposit.
