Roscoe-Gill v. Newman
232 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 22, 188 Ariz. 483, 937 P.2d 673 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A liquidated damages clause in a contract is enforceable and limits a non-breaching party's recovery to the specified amount, even if actual damages are substantially higher, unless the clause was procured by fraud, duress, or is unconscionable.
Facts:
- In September 1994, Carolyn Roscoe-Gill entered into a written agreement to sell her ranch to Charles Newman and his wife for $380,000.
- The agreement, drafted by Roscoe-Gill's attorney, contained a liquidated damages provision stating that if the buyer defaulted, the seller's sole remedy would be to retain the $5,000 earnest money deposit.
- Newman failed to close on the initial date of November 2, 1994, stating he had not yet received funds from a sale of his properties in Mexico.
- Roscoe-Gill agreed to extend the closing date three separate times, modifying the purchase price but never increasing the $5,000 liquidated damages amount.
- After Newman failed to close on the final extended date, January 30, 1995, Roscoe-Gill declared a breach of contract.
- Facing a pending foreclosure, Roscoe-Gill sold the ranch to a new purchaser for $260,000, resulting in significant financial loss.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Carolyn Roscoe-Gill filed a breach of contract lawsuit against defendants Charles Newman, Bonnie Newman, and T-Link Ranches in an Arizona trial court, seeking over $140,000 in damages.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the single issue of whether the liquidated damages clause limited the plaintiff's damages to the $5,000 earnest money deposit.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, ruling that the liquidated damages clause was controlling.
- Following the ruling, the parties stipulated to a judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000.
- Plaintiff Carolyn Roscoe-Gill, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
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 liquidated damages clause in a real estate contract limit a seller's recovery to the specified earnest money amount, thereby precluding recovery of greater actual damages, when the buyer defaults?
Opinions:
Majority - Pelander, Presiding Judge
Yes, a liquidated damages clause limits a seller's recovery to the specified amount. The legal principle that deems unreasonably large liquidated damages provisions unenforceable as penalties does not apply when a party argues the provision is unreasonably small. The purpose of such clauses is to provide certainty and avoid litigation over damages. A seller who freely agrees to a liquidated damages provision, especially when represented by counsel who drafted the agreement, cannot later avoid its limitation simply because their actual damages turned out to be higher. Here, Roscoe-Gill negotiated the contract and its subsequent extensions but never sought to increase the liquidated damages amount. There was no evidence of fraud, duress, or unconscionability that would justify setting aside the clause. Newman’s promises to complete the purchase were expressions of future intent, not fraudulent misrepresentations of present fact, and therefore do not support claims of fraud or equitable estoppel.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that a liquidated damages clause is a bargained-for limitation on liability that binds both parties, not just a floor for the non-breaching party's recovery. It clarifies that the "penalty" doctrine is a shield for the breaching party against excessive, punitive damages, not a sword for the non-breaching party to escape a pre-agreed limit. The ruling emphasizes the importance of freedom of contract and places the burden on parties, particularly those represented by counsel, to negotiate adequate protection at the time of contracting. In future cases, parties seeking to avoid a liquidated damages clause on the basis of inadequacy will face a high bar, needing to prove fraud, duress, or unconscionability.
