Treemont, Inc. v. Hawley, 886 P.2d 589 (Wyo. 1994)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 886 P.2d 589 (Wyo. 1994); 1994 Wyo. LEXIS 158
- Court / Year: Supreme Court of Wyoming, 1994 (Taylor, J.)
- Topic tags: forfeiture, disclosure
- Facts: Treemont bought 4,000+ recreational/timbered acres in Converse County from the Hawleys under an “Agreement for Warranty Deed” for 150,000 down payment and annual installments. The contract required Treemont to deliver all timber-sale proceeds to the sellers’ escrow agent while a balance remained. Just before closing Treemont signed a timber contract and took a $50,000 advance, which it concealed and used as part of its own down payment instead of paying the Hawleys. The Hawleys declared default; the trial court granted them summary judgment, terminated the contract, and awarded the sellers the escrow including all monies paid. The contract’s default clause deemed retained payments “rentals … and/or as liquidated damages.”
- Holding: Affirmed. Treemont materially breached an unambiguous contract, and termination with forfeiture of all monies paid was enforced as written.
- Reasoning: “This court does not favor forfeiture of contractual rights” (citing Marcam Mortg. Corp. v. Black, 686 P.2d 575 (Wyo. 1984) and barker-v-johnson-1979); “however, where the parties’ intentions regarding default are clearly set forth in their contract, this court will not controvert the parties’ intentions” (citing Albrecht v. Zwaanshoek Holding En Financiering, B.V., 762 P.2d 1174 (Wyo. 1988) and younglove-v-graham-and-hill-1974). The default clause unambiguously let the sellers declare the contract null and void, take possession, and retain payments as rentals/liquidated damages.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: The modern (1994) confirmation that Wyoming enforces contract-for-deed forfeiture and retained-payment (“liquidated damages”) clauses per their terms when the contract is clear and the breach material — even on a large-dollar deal with a substantial down payment. There is no statutory cure period or substantial-equity bar; the contract governs.
- Good-law status: Good law.
- Source (retrieved): https://static.case.law/p2d/886/cases/0589-01.json · Verified: 2026-06-08
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: wyoming
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.