Contract4Deed Wiki

Hettermann v. Weingart (1983)

6 min read

Hettermann v. Weingart, 120 Ill. App. 3d 683, 458 N.E.2d 616 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1983)

Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.

  • Citation: Hettermann v. Weingart, 120 Ill. App. 3d 683, 458 N.E.2d 616, 76 Ill. Dec. 216 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1983), No. 83-181, opinion filed December 29, 1983 (opinion by Unverzagt, J.).
  • Court / Year: Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, 1983.
  • Topic tags: forfeiture · strict-construction · disclosure · rescission · restitution · equitable_interest
  • Facts: The Hettermanns (sellers; the action was prosecuted by the co-executors of Edwin H. Hettermann’s estate) sold real estate improved with a building used partly as a restaurant/tavern and partly as a residential dwelling unit to Nancy Weingart (buyer) under an installment contract. Weingart fell behind, and the sellers attempted to declare a forfeiture and recover possession, retaining the payments made. The contract, however, did not contain a forfeiture clause. Weingart counterclaimed. The trial court ruled for the sellers; Weingart appealed.
  • Holding: The Appellate Court reversed. A seller may declare a forfeiture of an installment real-estate contract only where the contract expressly grants that right; absent an express forfeiture clause, the sellers had no authority to forfeit. Where a forfeiture clause does exist, the language is strictly and narrowly construed against forfeiture — if the contract is susceptible of a construction that avoids forfeiture, that construction must be applied, and the party invoking forfeiture must show the right to it clearly and unequivocally exists and that no injustice will result. The court also held the Installment Contracts for Dwelling Structures Act (then Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 29, ¶¶ 8.21–8.22) applied because the property contained a residential dwelling unit, notwithstanding the deal’s business (restaurant) character. The court directed rescission of the contract and restitution to Weingart of amounts paid, reduced by the fair rental value of her period of occupancy.
  • Reasoning: Forfeiture is a disfavored, harsh remedy: “courts of equity abhor forfeitures.” A forfeiture is a creature of the contract — the right does not exist unless the parties bargained for it — so where the agreement contains no forfeiture clause, the seller cannot summarily forfeit and keep the buyer’s payments; the seller’s recourse lies in other remedies (rescission, foreclosure, damages). When a forfeiture clause is present, courts construe it strictly and narrowly and will adopt any reasonable reading that prevents the forfeiture, enforcing it only when the right “clearly and unequivocally” exists and no injustice results. Having found no contractual basis for forfeiture, and that the dwelling- structure disclosure statute governed the sale, the court unwound the deal through rescission with restitution offset by fair rental value rather than letting the sellers retain the property and the payments.
  • Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Hettermann is the Illinois authority for two operator-critical propositions: (1) forfeiture is not an implied remedy — if the installment contract does not expressly reserve the right to forfeit, the seller cannot declare one, so a CFD that omits a forfeiture clause leaves the seller to rescission, foreclosure, or damages, not a clean forfeit-and- keep; and (2) even with a clause, forfeiture provisions are read strictly against the seller, and a court of equity may refuse forfeiture (or invoke rescission with restitution) where the result would be unjust relative to the seller’s actual loss. It also flags that the Installment Contracts for Dwelling Structures Act disclosure/warranty duties attach whenever the parcel includes a residential unit, even on a predominantly commercial deal. For drafting, the lesson is that an enforceable forfeiture remedy must be expressly and unambiguously written into the contract — and is still subject to Illinois’s equitable and statutory limits on forfeiture (see illinois and the 20% / 735 ILCS 5/15-1106 foreclosure mandate).
  • Good-law status: Good law. The decision has been cited with approval, including by the Illinois Supreme Court in Ruva v. Mente, 143 Ill. 2d 257, 591 N.E.2d 1208 (1991) (on the purpose of the dwelling-structure inspection statute), and is relied on in Illinois title/conveyancing practice (e.g., ATG installment- contract materials) for the rule that the right of forfeiture must be expressly provided. No overruling or superseding decision was found; the statutory forfeiture/ foreclosure overlay it operated against has since been strengthened by the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (735 ILCS 5/15-1106) and the Installment Sales Contract Act (765 ILCS 67), which constrain forfeiture further rather than displacing the holding.
  • Source (retrieved):

▸ For Sellers / Operators — Two takeaways. First, forfeiture is only available if your contract expressly says so — Hettermann holds there is no implied right to forfeit an Illinois installment contract, so an omitted clause means you cannot forfeit-and-keep; you are pushed to rescission, foreclosure, or damages. Second, even a written forfeiture clause is strictly construed against you: you must show the right “clearly and unequivocally” exists and that no injustice results, and a court may rescind with restitution (less fair rental value) instead. If the parcel has any residential dwelling unit, the Installment Contracts for Dwelling Structures Act disclosure duties also apply. Draft the forfeiture remedy expressly, and remember Illinois’s statutory limits still sit on top (see illinois and forfeiture-vs-foreclosure).

▸ For Buyers — If your installment contract has no forfeiture clause, the seller cannot simply declare a forfeiture and keep your payments; and even where one exists, the court reads it narrowly and can order your money returned (offset by fair rental value) when forfeiture would be unjust.

Jurisdictions that follow / cite: illinois (controlling, 2d Dist.); part of the Illinois line disfavoring strict forfeiture alongside ruva-v-mente-1991; compare the national drift in forfeiture-vs-foreclosure.

Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Hettermann turns on the absence of an express forfeiture clause and the equities of the sale; outcomes vary with the contract language and facts. Confirm the opinion is still good law and consult a licensed Illinois attorney before relying on it.

Graph View

Backlinks