Jenkins v. Wise, 58 Haw. 592, 574 P.2d 1337 (Haw. 1978)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 58 Haw. 592, 574 P.2d 1337 (1978); 1978 Haw. LEXIS 156 (No. 5885).
- Court / Year: Supreme Court of Hawaii, 1978.
- Topic tags: forfeiture · equitable_interest · agreement_of_sale
- Facts: Buyers (the Jenkinses) purchased real property under an agreement of sale (Hawaii’s installment land contract) that contained a time-is-of-the-essence clause. The buyers defaulted on installment payments of principal and interest; the seller treated the default as warranting cancellation/forfeiture of the agreement. The trial court (jury-waived) found the buyers had defaulted but, on the equities, granted the buyers relief and ordered specific performance permitting them to complete the purchase rather than lose the property and their accumulated equity.
- Holding: A time-is-of-the-essence clause does not automatically entitle the seller to forfeiture of an agreement of sale. Where the defaulting buyer’s breach does not involve gross negligence or bad faith, and the seller can be adequately compensated, equity may relieve the buyer from forfeiture and decree specific performance. Forfeiture of a buyer’s interest under an agreement of sale is an equitable matter committed to the trial court’s discretion and will not be enforced where, absent the buyer’s bad faith, it would be harsh and unreasonable.
- Reasoning: An agreement of sale functions like a security/financing device: the buyer takes possession and an equitable interest, paying the price in installments, with the deed delivered at payoff. Allowing summary forfeiture on any default would permit the seller a windfall (recovering the land plus all prior payments and the buyer’s improvements). Hawaii follows the broad equitable tradition of relieving against forfeitures, conditioning relief on the absence of bad faith/gross negligence and the seller’s ability to be made whole.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Jenkins is the lead Hawaii authority establishing that a Hawaii agreement of sale is not subject to strict, self-executing forfeiture. A seller cannot reliably wipe out a good-faith defaulting buyer’s equity by invoking a forfeiture/time-is-of-the-essence clause; the buyer can seek equitable relief (and, where appropriate, specific performance). It anchors the later liquidated-damages/forfeiture line — gomez-v-pagaduan-1980 and kaiman-realty-v-carmichael-1982 — and explains why a prudent Hawaii seller enforces a defaulted agreement of sale through foreclosure (judicial under HRS ch. 667 Part IA, or power-of-sale under Part II / § 667-40) rather than relying on a raw forfeiture clause.
- Good-law status: Good law; repeatedly followed (e.g., Gomez v. Pagaduan, 1 Haw. App. 70, 613 P.2d 658 (1980); Kaiman Realty, Inc. v. Carmichael, 65 Haw. 637, 655 P.2d 872 (1982)).
- Source (retrieved): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1414595/jenkins-v-wise/ · Verified: 2026-06-08 (citation, court, and 1978-02-08 decision date confirmed via CourtListener opinion index; holding corroborated by Iwamoto, Liquidated Damages in Hawaii Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreements, The Practical Real Estate Lawyer (Sept. 2019), https://www.honolulu-lawyers.com/static/2023/10/prel1909_iwamoto.pdf).
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: hawaii
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.