Minor v. Minor
7 Cal. Rptr. 455, 184 Cal. App. 2d 118, 1960 Cal. App. LEXIS 1856 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of anticipatory breach does not apply to unilateral contracts for the payment of money in installments where the non-breaching party has already fully performed their obligations. The non-breaching party may not sue for the total sum of future payments and must instead sue for installments as they become due.
Facts:
- On September 25, 1957, a husband and wife entered into a property settlement agreement.
- In the agreement, the wife waived any future claim to alimony in consideration for the husband's promise to pay her a total of $10,000.
- The husband's payment was structured as $1,000 within 15 days, with the remaining $9,000 to be paid in monthly installments of $175.
- The contract did not contain an acceleration clause that would make the full amount due upon a default.
- Immediately after the agreement was signed, the husband allegedly renounced his obligation to pay.
- The husband failed to make the initial payments on time and subsequently stated to his wife that he was not going to pay.
- While the husband eventually made some overdue payments, he did so only under the compulsion or threat of legal action.
Procedural Posture:
- The wife (appellant) filed suit against her husband (respondent) in the trial court.
- The wife's complaint sought the entire remaining balance of the contract under the theory of anticipatory breach.
- The trial court found that the doctrine of anticipatory breach did not apply to the contract in question.
- The trial court entered judgment that the wife should 'take nothing' from her complaint.
- The wife appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 the doctrine of anticipatory breach apply to a unilateral installment contract, allowing a party who has fully performed to sue for the total amount of future payments upon the other party's repudiation?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobriner, J.
No. The doctrine of anticipatory breach does not apply to a unilateral contract for the payment of money in installments when one party has fully performed. The contract became unilateral once the wife fully performed her obligation by waiving her right to alimony. California law, as established in cases like Cobb v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co., holds that there can be no anticipatory breach of a unilateral contract. The rationale is that a party who has fully performed simply needs to await the counterperformance on the agreed-upon dates and is not subjected to the hardship of preparing for their own future performance in the face of a repudiation. While this rule has been criticized for its logical inconsistency, the court declined to overturn this established precedent due to the widespread use of installment contracts and the potential for significant, negative social consequences.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the traditional common law rule that creates an exception to the doctrine of anticipatory breach for unilateral installment contracts. By declining to extend the doctrine, the court solidifies a clear distinction in remedies available for breaches of bilateral versus unilateral agreements. The case serves as a key precedent in California, establishing that a party who is owed money under an installment plan but has already completed their own obligations cannot accelerate the debt upon repudiation; they must pursue remedies for each installment as it becomes delinquent. This judicial restraint highlights a reluctance to alter established commercial law principles, even in the face of academic criticism, due to the potential for broad societal and economic disruption.
Unlock the full brief for Minor v. Minor