*1 681 with cases foregoing is consistent a true jurisdictions which hold that other MORRIS, Melville L. Plaintiff there is an negated lease can where only be Respondent, part the lessee obligation on the explicit to the substantially equal to an amount pay case, price.8 In the instant both Sykes, Dwane J. and Patricia SYKES lease at right had the to cancel the Appellants. Defendants The lease any time after June 1978. No. 16838. “for provided that the lease would run there- period
minimum of six months and Supreme of Utah. Court equipment after until the is returned After until lessor terminates lease.” 1981. Jan. period,
the initial the lease be- therefore
came a month-to-month rental. interpreted
The trial court supra) meaning
lease (quoted the lease lessor could terminate
only provisions to the terms “according stated,” e.,
hereinafter i. cause. It is phrase opinion9
our considered said right by
refers not to the of termination wit, agreement
lessor but itself—to to
“Arnold ... leases Machinery hereby here Excavating equipment
Utah ... described, according terms
inafter provisions hereinafter ...” stated disputed
Any other interpretation in perpetual render the lease
phrase would
duration, clearly by intended which was not parties. light foregoing,
In we conclude as a securi-
that the lease was not intended entitled to
ty interest and that The lower
recover rentals. case is judgment
court’s is reversed and the proceedings
remanded for further consist- with this opinion.
ent Costs CROCKETT,*
STEWART, HOWE, and
JJ., HARDING, Retired and MAURICE Judge,
District concur. J., participate
MAUGHAN, does not C.
herein; HARDING, sat. Judge, District Ephraim Company v. court. Theater Ser- the trial 8. See Uniform Commercial Code Bender’s vice, Transactions, Hawk, P.2d Volume Secured 2d 4A.06[9][d], cited and cases therein. § * CROCKETT, Justice, be- case concurred this interpretation reviewing written 9. In of a his retirement. fore document, not defer the views we need *2 Jeffs, Provo, M. Jeffs of Dayle Jeffs & for appellants. defendants and plaintiff Boyce, City,
A. H. Lake Salt respondent. * CROCKETT, Justice: specific per- Morris sued for Plaintiff purchase formance of a contract some undeveloped by compelling land in Alaska Sykes accept defendants the balance plain- convey thereon and the land to the tiff, alternative, inor to relieve the plaintiff unjust inequitable from an $23,216plaintiff paid forfeiture of the Upon on the contract. a trial to the against it found on the issue of requiring convey the proper- defendants to ty plaintiff, part but as a of that judgment permitting the defendants to keep their the court decreed an property, $14,121 equitable reimbursement appeals. Defendant 3, 1974, On entered October de- purchase into a contract to parcel approxi- fendant a vacant of land of mately 27 acres known as Tract B of the Subdivision, Fair- Musk Ox located near banks, price was Alaska. down, $40,000, $2,000 with paid to be monthly beginning De- payments $350 1, pro- cember 1974. The contract further $1,000 pay on vided that was to 1, 1, 1974, $5,000 on February November $3,000 1975, $5,000 August on February August on 1 and succeeding each * opinion prior Justice Crockett wrote this retirement. to his 1,1979, property payment when the contract and the of a
1 until reinstate- November full. paid balance to be The rate of fee. ment per-
interest balance was ten bank February On informed cent. defendant that unless he *3 The to be to the were made payments delinquency underlying mortgage on the Alaska, Fairbanks, First Bank of National days, within 30 the entire balance on a the same bank which held trust deed on the be declared mortgage would due. the previously by the executed property Thereafter, 15, 1977, February on the de- was the by defendant. The bank instructed for fendant a contract the sale entered into plain- received parties money that all from Iverson, Johnny of the M. his property to applied tiff on to be the the contract was on $20,663, brother-in-law, approximately for debt. the amount defendant would have received plaintiff had on the performed contract. payment, the down but Plaintiff made any advance notice given Plaintiff was not periodic payments the and were monthly of the sell the plan property defendant’s to made and in amounts different sporadically, agreement in parties to Iverson. The are result, than the contract. As a by called been quite that at that would have time it in plaintiff continually default under was on the mar- impractical property to sell the the contract. The defendant sent written heavy ket because under snows and it was advising plaintiff notices the him that as to therefore inaccessible. 1,1976, of he would be five months January $1,750. delinquent in the sum of These situation, it its the total Upon analysis of plain- communications further advised the trial court the judgment was the that depending tiff on the that defendant specific plaintiff granted per- should not be obligations payments to meet his nevertheless, formance, permit that to but First Bank of Fairbanks on the National $23,216 the entire the defendant to retain underlying mortgage. would a plaintiff which had constitute that the court forfeiture so unconscionable December, 1975, of- During defendant it; could not and therefore ordered approve parcels fered two additional plaintiff to sell $14,121as a condi- the defendant to return negoti- in the These Musk Ox Subdivision. his proper- and ations, exonerating tion to himself however, were not fruitful. ty plaintiff’s from claim. to late accept defendant continued urges enforce- partial appeal, and on the contract and On the defendant payments of the con- and Au- ment of the purchase by between the date forfeiture judgment on 2, 1976, made gust payments tract and seeks reversal $3,507 1) $23,216, August misap- interest court: totaling grounds to the that the trial principal. Septem- On forfeiture dam- plied the Alaska law on 2,1976, the prepay remaining 2) ber to that there was an ages, wrongfully offered held give principal would him a which the if defendant court unconscionable forfeiture “good doing. for so Defendant erroneously discount” enforce, 3) ruled that would not 11, 1976, pursu- refused on November given been defi- have the should contract, ant to the terms of the defendant notice, any to remedy opportunity nite caused termination to be issued a notice of defaults, to Iverson. sale before the upon plaintiff. and served Defendant argument Defendant’s
then quitclaim recorded the deed law of Alaska trial court misapplied pay- all plaintiff to defendant and retained grave us no con gives regard forfeitures ments of- by made Various with disagreement here. have no made cern We by fers of reinstatement were defend- where a contract is proposition ant to offers refus- plaintiff but these were in a performed to be they condi- entered into and is by ed because were jurisdic- of that law foreign jurisdiction tioned additional payments is forfeit the he had made and particu- and this his applied;1 tion should be larly so when the contract deals with land rights agree under the contract. We with Therefore, it is our jurisdiction.2 in that require judge the trial that fairness would the substantive law of Alaska duty apply notice, such a and of the defendant’s inten- However, correctly to this controversy.3 property tion to sell the to someone else. signifi- we see no by stated the trial negotiating He noted that the were the law of Alaska cant difference between of the uni- up a reinstatement to the time enforceability regard and our own in by lateral termination of the contract of such a contract and the forfeiture clause defendant. circumstances, therein. Under such apply court Utah law in the may properly remedy Specific performance showing that the absence an affirmative which is addressed to the sense of equity
law of Alaska is different.4 *4 court, justice good conscience attack upon Defendant’s the re accordingly, considerable latitude of $23,- quirement that he repay is allowed in his determination as discretion paid 216 which him is granted to whether it shall be and what premised upon a forfeiture that respect judgment should be entered upon the the seller buyer’s may default thereto; ruling and his thereon should not retain all amounts on the contract and appears it upset appeal clearly be unless proper terminate interest in the discretion,8 that he has abused his a circum ty. It is true where the a being have perceived stance we not stipulate liqui contract to a forfeiture and present here. damages, stipulation gener dated such will Affirmed. No costs awarded. is, however, ally be enforceable.5 It well Alaska,7 Utah,6 established in as well as
that where a
under the literal
forfeiture
STEWART, J.,
HENRIOD,
Retired
awarding
terms of a contract results in
to a
Justice, concur.
party a sum so entirely disproportionate to
any damages may
he
have suffered that it
J.,
MAUGHAN,
participate
C.
does not
shocks the conscience of the
a court
herein; HENRIOD,
Justice,
Retired
sat.
of
will
equity
approve
neither
nor enforce
WILKINS, J.,
arguments
such
heard the
but
penalty.
resigned
opinion
before the
was filed.
Defendant’s final contention is that
the court erroneously ruled that he should
HALL,
(concurring):
Justice
given
have
more definite notice of his in
My review of the record does not disclose
contract,
tent to forfeit the
in
and of his
was,
evidence,
any
if
there
of actual
tended sale to Iverson.
decision of the
weighed in
damage which the trial court
trial court
that he was
con
indicates
not
reaching its determination that enforce-
gave
vinced
the defendant
pay up,
liquidated damage provision
definite notice that he must
ment of the
See,
Utah,
Casualty
Surety
Crompton,
g.,
1.
Nevertheless, not raised issue was I
low, Consequently, appeal. nor on this affirming judgment.
concur in (Heater), Plaintiff and
Clarice DUPUIS Cross-Respondent,
Appellant and NIELSON, Cyrill Defendant and
Edwin Cross-Appellant.
Respondent and
No. 16865.
Supreme Court Utah. *5 21, 1981.
Jan. Hawkes, King and James E. Salt
Samuel appellant City, for Lake cross-respondent. City, Karras, Lake
Frank N. Salt cross-appel- respondent defendant lant.
STEWART, Justice: Plaintiff, recovering against de- upon action, injury filed personal in a fendant new based on trial for an additur motion damages. It lower inadequate motion that denial court’s appeals. herein alleged dam- which accident when defend- occurred ages were sustained truck and driving pick-up his ant which had car the rear struck light. a red intersection for stopped at an liability on the issue directed verdict A at in favor was entered of all evidence. conclusion Spencer, 1. See Perkins P.2d 446