Glad Tidings Church of America v. Hinkley, 71 Ariz. 306, 226 P.2d 1016 (Ariz. 1951)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 71 Ariz. 306, 226 P.2d 1016 (1951)
- Court / Year: Arizona Supreme Court, 1951
- Topic tags: forfeiture · equitable_interest · land_contract
- Facts: A church bought real property under a 1938 land contract (contract for deed), went into possession, and defaulted on the balloon balance due Jan. 1, 1940. The vendor served a “Notice of Cancellation” in June 1940 that gave no 10-day grace period and tendered no deed. The church remained in possession, kept paying $45/month, and for more than six years made no objection, no effort to raise the balance, and asserted no contract rights — only depositing the purchase price in late 1946. When the vendor sued to quiet title, the church counterclaimed for specific performance.
- Holding: The law does not favor forfeitures; a vendor who invokes a contractual forfeiture clause must comply strictly with all the requirements of the contract — so the vendor’s notice here was ineffective to work a forfeiture (no 10-day grace, no tender). A notice is a sufficient tender if it expresses the vendor’s readiness, willingness, and ability to deliver a deed upon payment. But the ineffective notice still put the church on notice that the vendor would no longer acquiesce in the default; because the church then sat on its rights for more than six years without tendering performance, it forfeited any equitable claim to specific performance (laches / abandonment), and the quiet-title judgment for the vendor was affirmed. Had the buyer tendered performance within a reasonable time after the cancellation notice, it could have obtained specific performance.
- Reasoning: Arizona equity disfavors forfeitures and construes contracts to avoid them, but equity intervenes only where the defaulting buyer presents an equitable basis (e.g., timely tender, excusable default, substantial equity at stake). A buyer who sleeps on its rights for years forfeits the equitable claim to relief.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: The foundational Arizona statement that forfeitures are disfavored and require strict compliance with the contract’s terms — the common-law backdrop against which the modern statutory forfeiture procedure (A.R.S. §§ 33-741 to 33-749) operates. For a seller, a defective forfeiture notice is fatal; for a buyer, equitable relief is available but must be sought promptly with clean hands.
- Good-law status: Good law as a statement of Arizona’s anti-forfeiture equitable policy; the procedural forfeiture mechanics it discussed (former Code 1939 § 71-126) have since been superseded by the statutory forfeiture regime in A.R.S. Title 33, Ch. 6, Art. 3.
- Source (retrieved): full opinion verified against Harvard Caselaw Access Project primary text, https://static.case.law/ariz/71/cases/0306-01.json (71 Ariz. 306, 226 P.2d 1016, decided Jan. 29, 1951); citation/holding also at https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1951/5182-0.html and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914a09dadd7b0493467c063 · Verified: 2026-06-10
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: arizona
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.