Opinion
No. 2-391 / 01-1449.
Filed July 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dickinson County, DAVID A. LESTER, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals the grant of summary judgment forfeiting a real estate contract. AFFIRMED.
Paul Deck, of Deck Deck, Law offices Sioux City, for appellant.
Gregg Owens, of Ladeguard Maahs Owens, Spirit Lake, for appellees.
Considered by MAHAN, P.J., and ZIMMER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Was the real estate contract between the parties properly forfeited? The trial court believed so and granted summary judgment. We affirm.
Cheri Black sued Gene Robinson, Lori L. Robinson, Edward Rice and, Dawn Rice seeking nullification of the forfeiture of a real estate contract. The defendants answered and made a general denial. The Robinsons moved for and were granted summary judgment. Black appeals.
Black claims there are material issues of fact requiring denial of summary judgment and, even if material issues of fact do not exist, the court misapplied the law of forfeiture. Our review of the grant of summary judgment is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. Our review of the forfeiture is de novo. Id.
Cheri Black purchased 2.74 acres of land from the Robinsons. The real estate contract was entered into on September 12, 1996. The total price was $62,000. Black paid a $2,000 down payment and was required to make monthly payments, a $10,000 principal payment on January 15, 1997, and pay the taxes. Black was routinely late with payments. Notices of forfeiture were served on Black three times prior to the one in question. On January 7 1998, Black was served with a notice of forfeiture citing her for default for failure to make the payments due November 1 and December 1, 1997 and the tax payment due September 30, 1997. Black had previously been told to make late payments at the office of the Robinsons' attorney. On February 6, 1999, the last day she had to cure the forfeiture, Black went to the attorney's office after regular business hours to make the payments. Finding the office closed, she made no other effort to make the payment until the following Monday. The payment was refused and the affidavit of forfeiture was filed on February 9, 1999. No attempt was made to pay the real estate taxes.
Black makes much of her efforts to reach the attorney's office before closing on February 6. She had until midnight to make the payment and the notice of forfeiture made no mention of where the payment was to be made.
Summary judgment is governed by Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.981. The Robinsons are required to show there is no genuine issue of material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Iowa R. Civil P. 1.981(3). In resistance, Black must set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of material fact. Iowa R. Civil P. 1.981(5). The filings, affidavits, and the deposition of Black established there was no genuine issue of material fact. She was served and failed to remedy the defaults identified in the notice of forfeiture.
Although equity abhors a forfeiture, Jamison v. Knosby, 423 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Iowa 1988), it is part of our law and this abhorrence does not mean forfeitures will not be enforced. When assessing the propriety of a claimed forfeiture, we are mindful of the legal relationship between vendor and purchaser. Sheeder v. Lemke, 564 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Iowa 1997). After a real estate contract is made, the purchaser becomes the equitable owner of the land. Id. The vendor retains legal title to the land as "security for payment of the purchase price." Knapp v. Baldwin, 213 Iowa 24, 27, 238 N.W. 542, 544 (1931). For this reason, we are less likely to approve a forfeiture if the purchaser is current with payments. Lett v. Grummer, 300 N.W.2d 147, 149 (Iowa 1981). In breaches other than failure to make payments, de minimis breaches not affecting the vendor's security will not justify forfeiting a real estate contract. Sheeder, 564 N.W.2d at 3. On the other hand, "flagrant" and "stubbornly deliberate" breaches, even if minor when viewed from an economic standpoint, have been held to justify a forfeiture. Id.
Black entered into a contract. She failed to make the contract payments and pay the taxes, resulting in a notice of forfeiture. She failed to do what the notice of forfeiture required. The Robinsons were entitled to forfeiture and the trial court's grant of summary judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.