Huckins v. Ritter, 99 N.M. 560, 661 P.2d 52 (N.M. 1983)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 99 N.M. 560, 661 P.2d 52 (1983)
- Court / Year: Supreme Court of New Mexico, 1983
- Topic tags: forfeiture · remedies
- Facts: A real estate contract buyer paid a large down payment — approximately one-third of the total purchase price — and was in possession only a short period before default; the seller sought to forfeit the buyer’s interest and retain the down payment.
- Holding: Forfeiture refused. Retention of a down payment nearly one-third of the purchase price, coupled with the buyer’s short possession, constituted an unwarranted forfeiture that shocks the conscience of the court.
- Reasoning: Equity will not enforce a forfeiture whose literal terms produce unfairness shocking the conscience; the size of the forfeited payment relative to price and the brevity of possession were decisive on these facts. (As later read in Buckingham: market-value movement and the buyer’s payment history can distinguish Huckins.)
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: A leading “forfeiture-refused” New Mexico precedent and the source frequently cited for the equitable four-factor test; marks the boundary opposite Manzano and Russell.
- Good-law status: Good law; cited in Russell and Buckingham.
- Source (retrieved): https://static.case.law/nm/99/cases/0560-01.json · Verified: 2026-06-08
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: new-mexico
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.