Beitelspacher v. Winther

summary judgment pre- was who held on first contrac- since a decision

mature and Reuben O. BEITELSPACHER Ruth upon depended Beitelspacher, the result of tor’s claim Ruth Nelson Bei a/k/a words, claim. In other telspacher, Appellants, second contractor’s Plaintiffs and depends upon of an issue where resolution issue, summary a second outcome Elden L. WINTHER and Antoinette M. granted first judgment cannot be on the Winther, Appellees. Defendants second is also issue until the resolved. See 16388, Bronte, Nos. Inc. v. Commer Villa Charlotte Co., cial Ins. N.Y.2d Union Supreme Court of South Dakota. (1985)(Error N.Y.S.2d 476 N.E.2d 640 Argued May partial summary judgment declar- to enter ing required that insurer was not to defend Decided Oct. charge insured on officer of defamation mak- questions regarding until factual

ing defamatory re- statements were

solved).

Although given by Depart- the reasons Myers to Transportation Secretary

ment of

deny request proposal Candee’s appear

plans project 41 reasonable on on face,

their oth- a closer examination reveals fact, if

erwise. Candee Construction

Company proves on issue wins Transportation imposed Department standards

unreasonable construction Candee,

upon any “unsatisfactory claims

performance previous work” and failure completion projects

“to meet the dates for 45, causing ‘inconvenience to the

travelling public’ and loss to ‘economic ” dependent upon could businesses them’ Department of Trans-

be the fault of

portation Con- and not fault of Candee words, Company. In if the

struction other

delay problems and construction were Department Transportation,

caused

(i.e., wrongful imposition of unreasonable standards,) genuine

construction issues prevent summary

material fact exist and Int’l, Tenneco,

judgment. Inc. v. Groseth

Inc., (S.D.1987); Bego 410 N.W.2d 159

Gordon,

Therefore, ruling prior to a on issue 4

jury premature. on issue verdict P.C., Aberdeen, Richards,

Carlyle E. plaintiffs appellants. (this Schmidt, 15-6-60(b) essentially a Schroyer, red

Mark A. Moreno raised, herring, but, having Barnett, P.C., Pierre, been it is for defen- Colwill and below). treated M. Antoinette Winther. appellee, dant and Review, assert, by Notice of No. Tonner, of and Thoma's M. Tobin Tobin 16389, trial court erred the four Aberdeen, King, appel- defendant and for aspects concerning adjustment equi- lee, L. Elden Winther. parties: ties between these penalty 1. A WEB easement was im- HENDERSON, Justice. properly assessed as a detriment to property; CASE SUMMARY attorney’s 2. fees Excessive were We affirm the trial court’s decision on a Sellers, as the trial awarded to court foreclosure, with the ex- contract for deed portion failed to determine what of counting of ception improve- aof double Seller’s claimed fees were reason- wrongly ments which made able; Thus, equities. balancing skews the of we pay- and 3. part affirm in and reverse remand Interest on value ments to should part. made Sellers balancing eq-

been considered uities; and, HISTORY/ISSUES PROCEDURAL crop 4. Increases “ASCS bases” Plaintiffs/appellants Reuben 0. Beitel- should included in eq- have been (Sellers) spacher Beitelspacher Ruth and balancing process as they uitable initiated an action to foreclose on a 1977 property. a were to the benefit contract for in the circuit court for deed County defendants/appellees Brown after FACTS Antoinette Elden L. Winther and Winther 30, 1977, September Buy- On Sellers $123,585 (Buyers) a final failed to make signed a deed on ers contract for Sellers’ trial, payment. non-jury After a balloon farm, comprised pas- acres of which judgment foreclosing Buyers’ was entered ture, cropland, a 177 acres of 16-acre deed, subject for under the contract for, building site. The contract called inter $35,126.84 payment to Elden Sellers’ alia, $294,400, purchase price a total represented adjust- Winther. This sum an $8,000 front, $77,376 paid up with to be equities ment of between the payments due 1977. These October per under SDCL 21-50-2 this Court’s by Buyers. remaining made The un- were Noble, unanimous decision in Dow v. ($209,024) plus paid principal inter- balance N.W.2d 359 to be in annual installments of paid est was contend, Appeal in their Notice Sellers $10,451.20 plus interest. A final balloon No. trial court that the erred four $123,585.44 on payment of was due Novem- regards: 1,1987. Buyers did not make their ber The equitable adjustment 1. The formula Winther, payment, as Elden one of balloon is inconsistent Dow v. Noble with financing, Buyers, but tried to secure 21-50; SDCL Ch. failed. given 2. Noble should Dow v. Buyers, married each who were . application; retrospective they other at the time entered contract If applies, 3. the Dow v. Noble formula deed, in a for embroiled divorce became imple- not properly the trial court did Antoinette Winther action. (Sellers six separate it created ment sought in the Circuit Court for divorce point are sub-issues on which granted judg- County, Brown and was below); and, treated February dated ment and decree of divorce Buyers’ Interestingly, 1988. trial judgment initially 4. A entered default held on October against the divorce action was Antoinette Winther should 1987, only the final balloon days before set aside under five not have been Detriment Sellers' due. for deed was the contract payment on Original Expense 4. Antoinette to directed decree The divorce 5,838.00 $ Sale: sub- property, real in the deed her interest Expenses Miscellaneous deed, Elden, who the contract ject to 21,293.21 Recovery: $ $273,637.32 in Land related indebtedness assume all was to DETRIMENT: TOTAL property. such Benefits Sellers’ 5, 1988, Meanwhile, Buy- January payment, missed their balloon ers had Principal Paid: $179,336.80 Al- action. initiated this foreclosure signed the contract had though Antoinette Paid: Interest deed, by the divorce she was directed for $114,179.36 interest, quit via transfer her decree to deed, not served Elden. She was claim to by Buyers: Made Improvements trial, of readiness with a certificate 15,248.00 $ under 15-6- served” SDCL which “must be BENEFIT: TOTAL provides 40(b), although statute also $308,764.16 requirements of “[a]ny of the or all finding under the Thus, the trial court’s in dispensed with this rule of Dow v. Noble equity adjustment formula assigned to it.” by judge given case $273,637.32 subtracting reached was trial, appear at the and a did not Antoinette $35,126.84. $308,764.16,yielding from against her. judgment was entered default notice served with days after she was Six DECISION judgment, Antoinette filed a the default of (No. 16388) Appeal A. Notice Seller’s of affidavit, motion, for relief supporting with Noble and SDCL Applying I. Dow v. lS-e-GOlb).1 under SDCL judgment from 21-50 to the facts. Ch. granted by the trial court. Her motion was argue first that rules of Sellers itself, regarding the At trial evidence statutory render Dow v. No construction property con- was fair rental value (S.D.1986) ble, inconsistent 380 N.W.2d 359 Sellers, Although by their tradictory. provisions of 21-50. Two with SDCL Ch. allege that the trial court appeal, notice of 21-50-2, statutes, 21-50-3 particular SDCL finding rental of in that a fair value erred argument. upon in are relied Sellers’ acre, per property was Reuben $20 part: provides, pertinent in SDCL 21-50-2 value, for Beitelspacher testified that such shall have the “The court such actions pasture, was a cropland $20-$25 equitably adjust the of all power to range. SDCL 21- parties thereto ...” while that the total The trial court determined provides: 50-3 $308,764.16and to the Sellers was benefit under this Upon the trial of an action $273,637.32. total detriment was Seller's power chapter the court shall have to adjust- equitable court made an The trial fix the time judgment its shall figures, in these ment for the difference party de- within which the $35,126.84, pay were to to which Sellers comply terms of such fault must with the Buyers. part, which time contract on his or their eq- trial court’s Mathematically, days than ten from the shall be not less as follows: adjustment breaks down uitable judgment, and unless rendition of such Detriment Sellers’ judgment parties against whom such 99,162.11 $ 1. Rent: comply therewith fully shall is rendered Payment 2. Easement judgment specified, the time such within Buyers: 300.00 $ further $147,044.00 final without shall be become Loss of Land Value: neglect. 6—60(b)(1) surprise or excusable relief from final 1. SDCL allows 15— inadvertence, mistake, grounds judgment on Court, Dow, Carver, Heikkila court, rights asserted This and all order of and Prentice v. (S.D.1985), thereupon be the contract shall under Classen, (S.D.1984), recog- 355 N.W.2d 352 and foreclosed. forever barred of land contracts can nized that foreclosure gen- argue is a that SDCL 21-50-2 through unjust enrichment forfei- involve statute, is a whereas SDCL 21-50-3 eral argu- cases rejected ture. Earlier such au- which limits the court’s specific statute by generally holding that there was ments fixing the SDCL 21-50-2 to thority under Seller, in such a no forfeiture because the defaulting party may com- time in which case, merely as enforcing was the contract contract. We ply with the terms Severson, S.D., agreed. at “rights” 21-50-2 disagree. SDCL refers Long, 34 S.D. N.W., 583; Hickman v. adjusted. 21-50-3 has may be which (1914). 150 N.W. 298 This rule was with, reach it deals narrower because inequitable by criticized as Professor Cor- particularly, only aspect parties’ one 1931, see, Corbin, Right a bin time to cure default. The law rights —the Defaulting Buyer to the Restitution give so construed effect must be Paid, Installments Yale L.J. if State provisions, possible. its all of Dobbs, (1931), Remedies § p. cited (S.D.1977); Heisinger, 252 N.W.2d 899 (1972). position, in 864 Corbin’s as set out Halladay, Kriebs v. State ex rel. 52 S.D. Dobbs, adopted by was the Connecticut Su- 497, 501, 125, 219 N.W. 127 Hills, Vines v. Orchard preme Court interpretation reduce SDCL Sellers’ would Inc., 501, 1022, 510-12, 181 Conn. 435 A.2d nullity. to a 21-50-2 in Heikki (1980), (quoted 1028 approvingly la, N.W.2d, 219). 378 Numerous other interpretation of constricted Sellers’ path: courts have followed the same unsound, is reflected in SDCL 21-50-2 as analysis suggest that would Eide, [Traditional 20, 25, v. 52 216 N.W. Severson S.D. along this forfeiture would follow. But 581, (1927), Court, interpret- 583 where this dimension, too, the ac- courts have been 2915,2 R.C.1919, predecessor of ing the § reforming tively Increasingly the law. 21-50-2, wrote: SDCL holding may they are that forfeiture not If situation and the the were reversed “free” and that the must return be Seller rents amounted to more than the interest payments he insofar as has received taxes, think there can no we be they damages. his exceed actual that defendants could relieved doubt be Whitman, Real Estate D. G. Nelson apparent by applica- from an default an Law, 3.29, (2nd Ed.1985). Finance p. 100 § payment rents in such tion of the of appears the rule The last sentence be taxes, or is interest and as the situation support of the a nutshell. Cases cited in if desired to hold their con- defendants Moran v. Hol above statement include they tract could reduce the amount (Alaska 1972); man, Randall P.2d 769 501 paid by compelling in redemption to be Riel, 123 N.H. 757, (1983); v. 465 A.2d 505 apply to account such plaintiff for and (Ut.1981); Sykes, v. 624 Morris P.2d 681 due. rents to a reduction of the amount v. Bar Bell Land and Cattle and Howard why plaintiff can see no reason We Co., 189, (1959). See 340 81 Idaho P.2d 103 in his right not have the same of set-off also, Rector, v. Freedman Wardens favor. Parish, 37 St. Vestrymen Mathias that, 1927, trial apparent even in It (Denial 16, (1951) 230 P.2d Cal.2d 629 under authority adjust equities court’s public against policies restitution violate beyond narrow con- forfeitures, 2915 extended penalties, unjust enrich- § Moran, projected by Supreme R.C.1919 ment). fines Sellers. Alaska 21-50-3, a for- predecessor “equity of SDCL abhors observed Court § feiture”, Da- the Severson principle court as South perceived not observed was since 1899: “Forfeitures equitable adjustment. limit of kota at least the outer R.C.1919, adjust part: equitably all the provided, pertinent § 2. 2915 power in such shall have the thereto." "The court actions on the books since predecessors have been as odious in the always considered been Therefore, law, point here is law, as at issue and courts of circumscribed 1913. is, 21-50-2, struggle against jurisdiction really not but was Sellers’ their Clement, 12 S.D. them.” Barnes a forfeiture? This is payments retention of (1899). legis- Because the N.W. principles of which equity, a matter of equity in the consciously invoked lature are ancient. 21-50-2, reject we Sellers’ form of SDCL has, past, Court in the While this Dow v. Noble.3 position. We reaffirm retrospective application to give declined to Retrospective Application II. of Dow v. Rollinger Penney v. J. C. rule, a new Noble. Co., (1971), 192 N.W.2d 699 S.D. Bar, (S.D. Baatz v. Arrow No Dow v. argue that Sellers next 1988), presents this Court a situation where ble, (S.D.1986), 380 N.W.2d 359 should (Walz City apply ruling did a new they relied, applied under here because be Hudson, (S.D.1982)) retro deed, upon earlier South their contract for However, Three criteria are used to de keystone spectively. Dakota caselaw. given rule is to retro argument is S.D. Con termine emphasis Sellers’ whether VI, provides spective application: Article Sec. which stitution law, post impair ex facto or law that “[n]o par- purpose to be served obligation making or ing the of contracts rule; ticular new grant privilege, or fran irrevocable has The extent reliance which Thus, immunity, passed.” or shall be chise rule; and, upon the placed old been argument their is double-barrelled. on the administration of The effect jurisdiction Authorities from this and justice application a retroactive of of elsewhere, there is that no “black establish the rule. new Dow prohibition applying retro- letter” on 4 Baatz, purpose allowing at 301. The of actively: buyers prevent restitution to claim is to provision The of the Federal Constitution unjust part on the enrichment of sellers. any pass no “shall law” is that state ... contracts, Carver, Heikkila v. 378 219 N.W.2d obligation of impairing the Baatz, appli- As in retroactive prohibition, accord- (note omitted). This necessary cation is to effectuate the intent the the federal and ing to rule of courts only courts, purposes degree and of the rule. As to the is directed most state impairment by legislation, and placed upon of have against reliance Sellers byjudgments courts. There is no law, not Severson earlier indicated that case of court, R.C.1919, right (now in the decisions of a language vested the 2915 co- § change 21-50-2) of a court and a of decisions state given dified in could a SDCL law, passing not the of a does constitute in reading, treatment broad as shown our although change such the effect of is Further, Court, supra. I, in of Issue this in impair validity of a contract made N.W.2d, Rollinger, S.D., 6,n. at 164 192 86 decisions, (note prior reliance on omit- that at 704 n. indicated the defendant ted, emphasis supplied) practice (revolving in a engaged was accounts) 70S, charge had de- that never been Law Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional 16A § (1979). Here, clared a court in state. SDCL 21-50-2 and usurious at 712-13 due, is, Balancing in Dakota equities between the estate contracts looms South indeed, However, job judge. for a circuit court apparently, difficult and SDCL to a reliance Dow minority although the writer charac- hyperbole. conjectural 21-50-2 is worms,” law as "a can terizes this area of the this law had been on our statute books since retroactive, here, 4. Dow in the sense that Dow Throughout history, our state’s circuit Carver, (1986), predecessors, Heikkila v. and its judges many court labored under factual (S.D.1985) and Clas- 378 214 Prentice v. N.W.2d equities during to balance the times of scenarios 1984) sen, (S.D. all handed were N.W.2d drouth, wars, Depression, prosperity Great signed contract in down after this was well bankruptcy filings. periods high and The minority’s phraseology that destruction of real on the evidence. Sell- value was based Here, urged by Sellers had been rule Corbin, at trial er Reuben Beitelsbacher testified The 1931. See since under attack cropland pasturage cash rental of or Buyer to the Resti- Defaulting Right aof beyond range. It is Paid, was $20 $25 40 Yale L.J. Installments tution of no ver- I, party that a can claim better numer- cavil (1931). in Issue As shown he himself has sion of the facts which against sellers ruled courts have ous testified. situation, including v. Bar Bell Howard Co., 81 Idaho and Cattle Land allegation, that im Sellers’ second (1959), handed down which was P.2d 103 twice, counted is substan provements were Re- of this contract. long before creation improvements tiated the evidence. The effect on the administration garding an dug reroofing consisted of a well efficiency standpoint of or from a

justice barn, carpeting, repair, grain corral volume, great no wave we visualize bins, $15,248. appar totalling These were litigation. heightened appraisals ently considered made of im weighed inequity haveWe property, and thus were counted al men application, as posed by retroactive them as ready, before the trial court added Sears, Roebuck and tioned Fisher Appraiser Gerhanter benefits Sellers. (1974). 1, 5, Co., 88 S.D. specific modernity reference to the made inequity greater In this case we find house, “good good repair only prospec by giving Dow would result storage utility buildings”, of the other pro neither effect. Constitution tive bins, (the had and the new well old one retrospective effect of requires hibits nor up). appraisal makes dried Daniel Chase’s Billion, 405 Vogt decisions. judicial grain carpeting, reference to the house ap (S.D.1987). Retrospective court, bins, adding and well. The trial view, not, in does our plication of Dow improvements to the bene the value of the inequitable results be a risk of present received, counted these assets fits Sellers equities balancing of the between cause twice. Buyers is inherent in Dow reject claim that the tri We Sellers’ only loss to sellers is 21-50-2. The apportioning the costs of al court erred reaping possibility of a windfall. Sellers, among parties. the 1977 sale calculations, received 61 by the trial court’s Balancing Equities III. purchase price. In percent of the contract six indi- argument entails Sellers’ third 21-50- equities under SDCL adjusting the error: allegations of vidual only allowing find no error Sellers we that determination 1. The trial court’s expense as a credit. the sale percent 39 per acre fair rental value $20 incorrect; cropland was fourth, allega fifth and sixth The cite analyze, as Sellers are difficult tions by Buyers were Improvements made 2. Noble, 380 authority beyond Dow v. no twice; counted no (S.D.1986), which makes N.W.2d not original sale were All costs of Dow, at taxes. As mention of income Sellers; as detriment to allowed inter buyer this Court denied where liability tax increased income 4. Sellers’ therefore, we, hold payment, est on a down been repossession should have from clearly errone the trial court was considered; A these three claims. disregarding ous by on inter- paid Income tax in analysis of caselaw relatively detailed Buyers received from payments est restitution, G. Nel see volving foreclosure and, considered; should have been Whitman, Finance Real Estate and D. son Buyers savings of the Income tax Ed.1985), (2nd. 3.29, also Law, p. 100-108 § considered. should have been Sell aspects. tax refer to these does not Court take the arguments would ers’ tax assertion reject Sellers’ first We tax liabilities income Federal rental far afield. assessment of the trial court’s prop- across the contracting supplier, ter an easement parties were these are not what necessitating changes in WEB’s con- erty, land and dealt with contract for. Their up hook to the WEB water To struction. payments. proper- system, owners distribution made un- six claims Summarizing Sellers’ decision, Buyers’ must a result of ty, as only on issue, find error we der this $11,958. penalty of The evidence pay a counting improvements. second, double gone dry that one well had trial indicates mer- are without remaining five claims water property, and the artesian on the it. cloth- dug by stained from the well Further, appraisals Chase and ing. Judgment Default IV. included access to WEB water Gerhanter of discre no abuse There was prop- part of their determination set aside court’s decision to in the trial tion offset, value, to a erty’s a factor which is An against Buyer judgment the default by penalty. The trial degree, the WEB A motion to vacate toinette Winther. question. this court did not err on 15-6-60(b) is within judgment under SDCL the trial court and discretion of the sound fees, attorney’s As to these were appeal an absent will not be disturbed balancing equi part of the awarded as Haggar Olfert, discretion. abuse of ties under 21-50-2. “We believe Olson, (S.D.1986); Strouse detriment, including fees that the Sellers’ regard In this 397 N.W.2d property, in actions related to the accrued certificate of readiness for that no we note properly part of the trial court’s also is Antoinette, in violation served on trial was balancing process under SDCL 21-50-2.” 15-6-40(b) 15-6-40(b). Although of SDCL (S.D. Noble, Dow v. requirements be provides that such 1986). fees are not awarded as These by judge, the trial he need dispensed with court, thus, Dow, The trial did costs. id. permissive in so. The statute is not do Also, not err its award. Elden Winther’s In the circumstances of phraseology. proposed Finding of Fact No. conceded case, the trial court’s deci do not deem we $7,903 incurred in attor that Sellers had of discre this issue to be an abuse sion on fees, ney’s as a detriment. Further, judgment, this default as a tion. Buyers’ argu reject likewise We matter, only to affect the practical seems interest should have been calcu ment that fees, attorney’s trial court’s distribution principal payments received lated on the were, initially, paid by part to be of which appears This a variant of the Sellers. are, attorney’s fees Antoinette. Sellers Dow, argument rejected in an this Court judgment, later to be de the trial court’s argued, citing Buyers without where restitution, Buyers’ so this from the ducted authority, that interest should have been an irrelevance. issue is Now, payment. their down calculated on then, Lacking authority no is cited. as (No. 16389) Buyers’ B. Notice Review same, argument. Corbly dismiss the we challenge the trial court’s Matheson, (S.D.1983). As 335 N.W.2d 347 1) grounds: equities on four adjustment of Dow, that “the trial court we hold penalty not A easement should WEB water clearly in not consider was not erroneous Sellers; 2) to the as a detriment be counted ing item.” court failed to determine what the trial Elden Winther’s Finally, we deem attorney’s fees were portion of the Sellers’ participation in reasonable; 3) Buy that increased on the value of assertion interest con crop programs should have been as a ASCS payments should be considered ers’ sidered, authority 4) Again, no Sellers; to be waived. to and increases benefit by indicates error the trial is cited which crop should be considered “ASCS bases” Dow, at disagree. court. See benefits to Sellers. We and remand through part, Affirm in reverse penalty issue arose The WEB WEB, part. deny a rural wa- Buyers' decision to MORGAN, J., ment,

WUEST, C.J., away from and but shies tax considera- par- tions that is “not what because these concur. contracting parties ties were for.” These MILLER, JJ., dissent. SABERS contracting arrange- were not for a lease either, stop ment but that did not the ma- SABERS, (dissenting). Justice jority. majority going If the is attempt to I dissent. equitably adjust rights parties to of the going respon- If to take on the courts are by focusing on the detriments and benefits attempt sibility under SDCL 21-50-2 and Sellers, to the then the tax issues must be equities parties, they adjust taken into consideration since the tax con- prepared job, must to do the whole not sequences significantly of the transaction just part. The failure to balance all the impact Sellers’ detriments and benefits. equities parties contrary to the is example, For if the Sellers’ taxes will in- Heikkila, 21-50-2, spirit letter and of SDCL repossession, crease as a result of the (S.D.1985), Carver, any is as much a detriment to Sellers as Classen, (S.D. Prentice v. N.W.2d Expenses in “Miscellaneous Land Recov- 1984). token, ery.” By the same tax on the payments ignored. interest First, cannot be If considering the court erred measuring criteria is the amount of original all the costs of the sale. It is Sellers, illogical then benefit it is to use patently only unfair to allow “Sellers Buyers’ expense the amount of in the credit[;]” percent expense of the sale as a analysis. Buyers may paid While percent. Sellers incurred 100 Since Sellers 1114,179.36 interest, Sellers did not bene- necessarily expenses incur additional will by fit that amount. Sellers’ true benefit is resold, property all of the when the taxes, the amount of interest retained after original expenses must be considered a det- and that is the amount that should be used. riment. Second, majority rejects, without Simpler Approach A analysis, substantial Sellers’ claims of error Equitable Adjustment concerning failure to consider difficulty complexity of includ- liability —Sellers’ increased income tax ing analysis tax calculations in the court’s repossession; from readily appar- and detriments is benefits paid by —Income tax interest fact, impossible probably ent. it is Buyers; payments received from equitably adjust all the savings by Buyers. tax —Income detri- by focusing upon the benefits and given by majority reject- The reasons Therefore, ments to this court Sellers. ing wholly inadequate. Sellers’ claims are approach that would served an be better 1) Noble, Apparently, they are Dow v. agreement attempts to enforce the entered (S.D.1986), no mention makes approach an parties, into rather than taxes, 2) buyer of income Dow denied a attempts to convert a contract for 3) payment, aspects interest on a down tax agreement. explained deed into a lease As authority are not referred to in a certain the Rule Freyfogle, Vagueness restitution, 4) foreclosure tax considera- Reconsidering Law: Installment Land “would take the far afield” and tions Court Duke L.J. 609 Forfeitures, 1988 Contract 5) par- tax were “not these liabilities what (1988): contracting tjheir ties were for contract [as right the to ob- vendor should have [A] effect, payments.” dealt with land and In bar- tain of her contract the benefit majority saying: con- the is We have never compensation is the nor- gain_ Full before, sidered these claims so we cannot settings; mal rule in contract breach consider them now. particular reason to deviate there is no determining the irony In

The of these statements is obvious. from the rule here. recovery, courts enough change The court is bold to this amount of the vendor’s proper method of arrange- focus on the contract for deed to a mere lease should elderly, for great empathy I purchaser s damage calculation. their farm purchaser’s eq- couple farm who sold payments, as well as the retired hopes of a is to in 1977 in uity, irrelevant. What is relevant and moved town are retirement, (at simply property financially peaceful the the value of the secure and interest, it) $19,878.84,plus date on the recovers pay which vendor but must now This unpaid the contract amount. their regain possession farm. law, interpreted imple- the area of as approach at It cannot said this Id. 650. be is a worms. majority, the can of mented inequitable ineq- nothing is as there is for It be death of contract well the giving uitable the Sellers about benefit farms, homes, and deed sales of business- bargain. of their problems example, es. For see the identi- rights Equitable adjustment of the writing Freyfogle, supra, my and in fied easily still achieved under the is Verdoorn, Inc. v. Safari, approach. As explained above described Freyfogle: by Professor can calculate the restitution Courts I state am authorized to simply: the purchaser amount entitled MILLER, J., joins special in this property’s excess of value over writing. state, purchase price. A as a unpaid matter, might policy allow the vendor to portion

retain ex- some excess as injuries. compensation

tra her adjust equitably

Id. To

parties, pay- simply the court subtracts the property

ment due Sellers from the value are entitled to refund of However, excess. Sellers should al- In the Matter of the ESTATE OF expenses lowed to offset their foreclosure ERDMANN, LeRoy H. Deceased. against they penal- refund are so enforcing Here, ized for the contract. Sell- Nos. 16427. ers entitled were under contract to Supreme Court of South Dakota. $123,585.44plus payment balloon inter- date, est from the due November Argued March In lieu payment, property, of such a Decided Oct. adjudged $147,356.00, awith value to be will be returned Sellers. this situa- adjustment equitable

tion the works out

follows: $147,356.00

property value: LESS $123,585.44 payment: balloon 7.5% from interest 11—1— 18,374.85 10-1-89: $ 5,395.71 $ Refund: LESS 21,293.21 expense $

foreclosure offset: ($ 15,897.50) Buyers:

Amount due approach,

Under this do not receive Instead, they

a windfall. incur a loss $16,000 in

almost unrecovered foreclosure words,

expenses. In other fall Sellers still receiving

short of the full benefit of their

bargain. time, At the same the court's

interference with contract minimal.

Case Details

Case Name: Beitelspacher v. Winther

Court Name: South Dakota Supreme Court

Date Published: Oct 18, 1989

Citation: 447 N.W.2d 347

Docket Number: 16388, 16389

Court Abbreviation: S.D.