Barker v. Johnson, 591 P.2d 886 (Wyo. 1979)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 591 P.2d 886 (Wyo. 1979); 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 377
- Court / Year: Supreme Court of Wyoming, 1979 (Thomas, J.)
- Topic tags: forfeiture, equitable_interest
- Facts: The Johnsons bought the Lazy R Campground at Ranchester from Barker Brothers Company under an “Agreement for Warranty Deed” — total price 5,500 down, with 25,000 due October 1, 1977. The Johnsons defaulted on the August 1 installment; the seller gave written notice of default (received August 17), and the default was not cured within 15 days. The Johnsons sued for specific performance, arguing the contract should be construed as an equitable mortgage, that time was not of the essence, and that forfeitures are disfavored. The trial court ordered specific performance with a 10-day “redemption” period.
- Holding: Reversed (as to specific performance). The seller was entitled to declare a forfeiture: a material breach occurred, notice was given, the cure period expired, and the contract’s forfeiture clause was satisfied. The trial court should have entered judgment forfeiting the contract, foreclosing the buyers’ rights, and restoring possession to the seller. The contractual attorney-fee award to the seller was affirmed.
- Reasoning: Following younglove-v-graham-and-hill-1974, the Court held the seller’s right to forfeit “could be precluded only by the intervention of some applicable equitable principle,” and none applied. Omission of a “time is of the essence” phrase was not dispositive where the parties’ intention was clear. Applying Angus Hunt Ranch, Inc. v. REB, Inc., 577 P.2d 645 (Wyo. 1978) and Baldwin v. McDonald, 24 Wyo. 108, 156 P. 27 (1916), the Court found no evidence the parties intended a security/equitable mortgage rather than an installment land contract; “absolute title was vested in [the seller] subject only to the rights of the [buyers] under their contract.”
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Confirms Wyoming’s contract-governed forfeiture regime and the narrow equitable-mortgage escape: a defaulting buyer cannot convert a contract for deed into a mortgage (with redemption rights) absent proof the parties intended a security device. A clear forfeiture clause plus material breach and notice yields forfeiture and a seller quiet-title remedy.
- Good-law status: Good law. Cited in treemont-inc-v-hawley-1994.
- Source (retrieved): https://static.case.law/p2d/591/cases/0886-01.json · Verified: 2026-06-08
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: wyoming
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.