Russell v. Richards
103 N.M. 48, 702 P.2d 993 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Forfeiture clauses in real estate contracts are generally enforceable, and a court will only grant equitable relief if the forfeiture is so unfair that it shocks the conscience, a determination which cannot include the property's appreciation in value or payments the buyer made to a third-party assignor.
Facts:
- John R. and Beth Richards were the original sellers of a property under a real estate contract.
- Mary V. Russell became the assignee-purchaser, paying $11,188 to the prior assignors and assuming the remaining contract balance of $37,938 owed to the Richardses.
- Over approximately six years, Russell made 72 payments to the Richardses, reducing the contract principal by $10,782.
- During Russell's possession, the property's market value increased from $48,989 to $82,735.
- Russell rented out three units on the property, and at the time of default, the entire property was leased for a monthly amount exceeding her contract payment.
- Russell had previously defaulted several times but had cured each default before the final one that led to the forfeiture.
- Following the forfeiture and her departure from the property, Russell was unable to recover certain items of her personal property.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary V. Russell filed a lawsuit against John R. and Beth Richards in a state trial court.
- The trial court found that the forfeiture of Russell's interest in the real estate contract shocked its conscience.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Russell, awarding her $56,724 for her equity in the property and $7,500 for lost personal property.
- The Richardses, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the New Mexico Supreme 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 the forfeiture of a defaulting buyer's interest in a real estate contract constitute an unconscionable outcome that shocks the conscience when the buyer has made substantial payments and the property has significantly appreciated in value?
Opinions:
Majority - Walters, J.
No. The forfeiture of the buyer's interest was not unconscionable and the forfeiture clause is enforceable. A court may only refuse to enforce a forfeiture provision if the circumstances are so unfair they shock the conscience. The trial court erred in its analysis by improperly considering two factors: 1) the down payment Russell paid to her assignors, as the Richardses never received this money, and 2) the appreciation in the property's market value. The court clarified, citing MGIC Mortgage Corp. v. Bowen, that upon default and forfeiture, the buyer's interest is terminated, and any enhancement in value does not belong to the buyer. Because Russell's loss resulted from her own default on a contract whose terms she understood, there was no wrong committed by the Richardses that would justify awarding her damages for lost equity. The court affirmed the award for lost personal property, holding that an owner's testimony is competent evidence of value.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Stowers, J.
No. This opinion concurs with the majority's conclusion that the forfeiture was enforceable and the award of damages for lost equity should be reversed. However, it dissents from the majority's decision to affirm the award for lost personal property. The dissent argues that while an owner can testify as to value, the evidence presented by Russell was not substantial enough to support the judgment. It contends that the proof of the amount of damages was not subject to reasonable ascertainment and therefore, there was no basis for the award.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the 'shocks the conscience' exception used to avoid forfeiture in real estate contracts. By explicitly excluding a property's appreciated value and payments made to third parties from the equitable calculation, the court reinforces the seller's rights and the sanctity of the contract's terms. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for defaulting purchasers to recover lost equity, emphasizing that the benefit of appreciation belongs to the purchaser only during the life of the contract. The ruling solidifies the principle that a loss resulting from one's own default does not create a cause of action against the non-breaching party.
