Jameson v. Wurtz, 396 P.2d 68 (Alaska 1964)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 396 P.2d 68 (Alaska 1964)
- Court / Year: Supreme Court of Alaska, 1964
- Topic tags: forfeiture | equitable_interest | restitution | installment_land_contract
- Facts: Virginia Jameson and her husband had purchased a service-station property under a long-term real estate purchase contract. After her husband’s disabling illness forced the sale of his engineering business, the buyer fell behind — failing to make payments for roughly two years, allowing the property to be sold to the City for taxes, and then failing for a further year after a declared forfeiture to pay the balance due. The trial court held her equity forfeited, finding she had abandoned any interest in the property. The forfeiture would have given the seller’s successor (Portman) the property — into which the buyer had paid substantial value — for far less than its worth.
- Holding: The Alaska Supreme Court reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion in declaring a forfeiture. Permitting the property to be forfeited would result in an unjust enrichment to the seller’s successor of at least $14,000 — “more than double the amount he ha[d] invested.”
- Reasoning: Equity abhors a forfeiture. A court may refuse to enforce even an express forfeiture provision in a land sale contract when the principles of equity and justice so require — and a forfeiture that produces a windfall (unjust enrichment) to the seller, grossly disproportionate to any injury caused by the buyer’s default, is inequitable. The buyer’s equity is to be protected by affording a right to satisfy the balance and/or by restitution, not extinguished by strict forfeiture.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Jameson confirms and extends land-development-inc-v-padgett-1962: Alaska’s anti-forfeiture rule turns on unjust enrichment / disproportion, and is robust even against a badly defaulting buyer (here, years of missed payments and a tax sale). It is one of the decisions supporting restitution to the buyer in Alaska land-contract forfeitures. Operators must assume an Alaska court will measure the seller’s actual injury against the buyer’s forfeited equity, not simply enforce the clause.
- Good-law status: Good law. Part of the controlling Alaska line (Padgett → Jameson → allen-v-vaughn-2007).
- Source (retrieved): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1420505/jameson-v-wurtz/ · Verified: 2026-06-08
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: alaska
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.