Stinemeyer v. Wesco Farms, Inc., 260 Or. 109, 487 P.2d 65 (Or. 1971)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: Stinemeyer v. Wesco Farms, Inc., 260 Or. 109, 487 P.2d 65 (1971)
- Court / Year: Oregon Supreme Court (In Banc), 1971
- Topic tags: forfeiture, foreclosure, equitable_interest, waiver, acceleration
- Facts: A suit for strict foreclosure of a land sale contract on a motel and the underlying real property. The vendor had repeatedly accepted late monthly payments without penalty, and a prior letter indicated he would accept payments so long as made before the end of the month in which they fell due. On March 18, 1970 the vendor abruptly declared the entire balance due (acceleration), instructed the escrow agent to refuse any payment short of the full balance, and on April 6, 1970 filed suit for strict foreclosure. The vendee (Wesco) tendered the accrued delinquencies into court.
- Holding: Where a vendor has waived a time-is-of-the-essence provision by a course of accepting late payments, the vendor may not, without warning, accelerate the entire balance and obtain strict foreclosure on that acceleration; equity requires that the vendee first be given a reasonable opportunity to cure the default. Because Wesco cured all existing delinquencies by its tender into court, the vendor “was entitled to no more” — acceleration-based strict foreclosure was denied.
- Reasoning: A consistent practice of accepting late installments waives strict insistence on the time-essence clause; reinstating strict enforcement requires reasonable notice and an opportunity to cure. It would be inequitable to permit a vendor to lull a vendee into a relaxed payment practice and then spring an acceleration and forfeiture-style foreclosure without affording a cure window.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Oregon vendors who accept late payments on a land sale contract cannot rely on an unmodified time-essence clause to accelerate and strictly foreclose; they must first reinstate strict performance by clear notice and allow a reasonable cure. This common-law cure protection predates and parallels the statutory notice-and-cure machinery later codified for non-judicial forfeiture at ORS 93.905–93.945. See blondell-v-beam-1966 on the equity court’s discretion over the form of relief (strict foreclosure vs. judicial sale).
- Good-law status: good_law (Oregon Supreme Court; routinely cited for the waiver-of-time-essence / reasonable-opportunity-to-cure rule in land sale contract disputes).
- Source (retrieved): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1126630/stinemeyer-v-wesco-farms-inc/ · Verified: 2026-06-08
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: oregon
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.