Petersen v. Hartell
219 Cal. Rptr. 170, 40 Cal. 3d 102, 707 P.2d 232 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A vendee in an installment land sale contract who has made substantial payments and then willfully defaults has an absolute right to redeem the property by paying the entire remaining balance of the purchase price, plus interest and any damages.
Facts:
- In November 1967, Juanita Gaspar entered into a written contract to sell over six acres of land to her granddaughter, Kathy Petersen, and her husband, Richard Petersen.
- The total purchase price was $9,162, payable in monthly installments of $50, with no down payment, and the contract allowed the Petersens to pay the entire balance at any time.
- Between November 1967 and March 1973, the Petersens made 58 of the 65 payments due, totaling $2,900.
- In April 1973, the Petersens separated and ceased making all payments on the contract.
- In September 1975, after more than two years of no payments, Kathy Petersen attempted to send $250 for back payments, but Gaspar's attorney rejected it and stated Gaspar was terminating the contract.
- In September 1976, Richard Petersen again attempted to reinstate the contract with a $250 payment, which was again returned on Gaspar's instructions.
- Juanita Gaspar died in October 1976.
- Following Gaspar's death, Kathy Petersen assigned her interest in the contract to a trustee for her children.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Petersen and his children, as assignees of the contract, sued the administratrix of Juanita Gaspar's estate in state trial court.
- The plaintiffs sought specific performance of the land sale contract and tendered the full remaining balance of the purchase price.
- Following a nonjury trial, the trial court denied the prayer for specific performance.
- The trial court entered a judgment concluding that the plaintiffs' breach was willful and grossly negligent, entitling them only to restitution of the $2,900 they had paid, plus interest.
- The plaintiffs (vendees) appealed the judgment of the trial court.
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 vendee who has made substantial payments on an installment land sale contract and then willfully defaults on further payments retain an absolute right to redeem the property by paying the full remaining balance of the purchase price?
Opinions:
Majority - Reynoso, J.
Yes. A vendee who willfully defaults on an installment land sale contract after paying a substantial portion of the purchase price retains an absolute right to redeem the property by paying the entire remaining balance. The court reasoned that in such contracts, the seller's retention of legal title serves merely as a security interest, analogous to a mortgage. Equity abhors a forfeiture, and allowing the vendee to pay the full contract balance makes the vendor whole, giving them the full benefit of their bargain. This right of redemption is unconditional and not dependent on a balancing of equities, distinguishing it from the discretionary remedy of specific performance discussed in prior cases like MacFadden v. Walker. The court established this right can be asserted by the vendee in response to the seller's notice of termination, without the seller needing to file a quiet title action first.
Dissenting - Mosk, J.
No. A willfully defaulting vendee's right to redemption is not absolute but should be a matter for the trial court's discretion based on a weighing of the equities. The dissent argues that the majority misinterprets the precedent, which never contemplated an unqualified right to redemption. The trial court properly exercised its discretion by denying relief to the Petersens, whose default was willful and prolonged, especially considering the elderly seller's reliance on the income for her support. The majority's holding ignores the fundamental difference between an installment contract, where title is not transferred until full payment, and a mortgage, thereby upsetting the reasonable expectations of parties who choose this form of contract.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Bird, C. J.
Yes. A willfully defaulting vendee has a right of redemption, but this right should not be conditioned on having paid a 'substantial part' of the purchase price. The concurring and dissenting opinion agrees with the majority's core holding but argues it should apply to all vendees, regardless of the amount paid, because paying the full balance always makes the vendor whole. The opinion further argues that the court should have gone further by treating installment land sale contracts as the functional equivalent of mortgages. This would grant vendees not only a right of redemption (paying the full balance) but also a right of reinstatement (curing the default by paying only the overdue amount), which would provide greater protection for low-income buyers.
Analysis:
This case significantly shifted California law by strengthening the rights of buyers under installment land sale contracts. It moves away from a discretionary, equity-based remedy of specific performance toward an absolute right of redemption for vendees who have built up substantial equity. By treating the seller's interest as a security device akin to a mortgage, the decision makes it much more difficult for sellers to enforce a simple forfeiture of the property upon the buyer's default. This ruling solidifies a judicial trend toward providing mortgage-like protections to installment contract vendees, impacting how these transactions are structured and enforced.
