Mosso v. Lee, 53 Nev. 176, 295 P. 776 (Nev. 1931)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 53 Nev. 176, 295 P. 776 (1931)
- Court / Year: Supreme Court of Nevada, 1931
- Topic tags: forfeiture · equitable_interest · installment_land_contract
- Facts: The buyer (Hans Lee) took possession of real property under a contract for the sale of land (an installment land contract) that contained a forfeiture clause and a time-is-of-the-essence provision. He failed to pay property taxes promptly and a $33.75 interest installment when due (Jan. 15, 1929). The seller attempted to declare a forfeiture; the buyer sought relief in equity. The trial court found Lee’s default was due to inadvertence and carelessness, but not willful.
- Holding: A court of equity will relieve a defaulting land-contract purchaser against forfeiture for default in payment of money where the default was caused by inadvertence, accident, mistake, ignorance, or non-willful neglect, even though the contract contains a forfeiture clause and makes time of the essence, when enforcing the forfeiture would be harsh or inequitable.
- Reasoning: Equity examines the whole contract in light of the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the parties truly intended that a non-willful, curable default should cause the buyer to lose the interest the contract secured to him. Where damages can be ascertained or compensation made, equity relieves against forfeitures and penalties rather than enforcing a disproportionate loss. A time-is-of-the-essence clause does not preclude equitable relief where performance is tendered without unreasonable delay and no intervening circumstance makes relief inequitable.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Mosso is the foundational Nevada authority that a forfeiture clause in a contract for deed is not self-executing against equity. A Nevada seller cannot reliably forfeit a buyer who has a curable, non-willful default — the buyer can obtain a reasonable time to cure. For operators, this means building a genuine cure/foreclosure process into the contract (also required by NRS 598.0923(1)(f)(5)); for buyers, it is the common-law substantial- equity protection. Followed in Slobe v. Kirby Stone, Inc., 84 Nev. 700, 447 P.2d 491 (1968), and the relief-from-forfeiture line including Benetti v. Kishner, 93 Nev. 1 (1977).
- Good-law status: Good law. Repeatedly cited as the leading Nevada relief-from- forfeiture decision for land contracts.
- Source (retrieved): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3568651/mosso-v-lee/ · Verified: 2026-06-08
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: nevada — Nevada’s common-law analogue to the skendzel-v-marshall-1973 anti-forfeiture principle.
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.