Barkis v. Scott, 34 Cal.2d 116, 208 P.2d 367 (Cal. 1949)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: Barkis v. Scott, 34 Cal.2d 116, 208 P.2d 367 (1949).
- Court / Year: Supreme Court of California, 1949.
- Topic tags: forfeiture | equitable_interest | relief_from_forfeiture | section_3275
- Facts: In 1941 the buyers agreed to purchase a house and lot in Oakland for 700 down and the balance at $42.50/month with 6% interest — under a contract making time of the essence and providing for forfeiture on default. The buyers missed a payment due to a clerical mistake by their bank; the seller declared a forfeiture and sued to quiet title. The trial court quieted title in the seller.
- Holding: A non-willfully defaulting vendee under an installment land contract is entitled to relief from forfeiture under Civil Code § 3275 — i.e., the buyer may cure (reinstate) by making full compensation to the seller — notwithstanding a time-is-of-the-essence clause and a contractual forfeiture provision. The Court reversed the quiet-title judgment.
- Reasoning: Civil Code § 3275 provides that a party who “incurs a forfeiture, or a loss in the nature of a forfeiture, by reason of his failure to comply” with an obligation “may be relieved therefrom, upon making full compensation to the other party, except in case of a grossly negligent, willful, or fraudulent breach of duty.” A defaulting land-contract buyer faces exactly such a loss-in-the-nature-of-a-forfeiture, and where the default is not willful the buyer can be restored on full compensation. The Court treated the seller’s retained title as security and held the seller is made whole by payment, so equity will relieve against the forfeiture.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Barkis is the foundation of California’s anti-forfeiture land-contract doctrine. It established the innocently defaulting buyer’s right to reinstate (or recover restitution). Petersen v. Hartell (1985) later extended comparable redemption relief to willful defaulters via the Civil Code’s broader anti-forfeiture policy. Together they mean a California land contract functions much more like a security instrument than a forfeitable conveyance.
- Good-law status: Good law; foundational and consistently cited.
- Source (retrieved): https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/barkis-v-scott-29400 · Verified: 2026-06-08
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: california. See also petersen-v-hartell-1985.
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.