Weter v. Archambault, 2002 MT 336 (Mont. 2002)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 2002 MT 336 (Mont. 2002) (Montana neutral citation; pin the parallel Mont. reporter and P.3d pages before quoting in a brief). Docket No. 02-004; decided Dec. 20, 2002.
- Court / Year: Supreme Court of Montana, 2002.
- Topic tags: forfeiture, remedies, quiet_title
- Facts: A 1993 contract for deed for Glacier County ranch tracts gave the seller (Weter) three alternative default remedies: Alternative I (breach-of- contract damages), Alternative II (cancellation of the contract and forfeiture of the contract property), and Alternative III (foreclosure) — with Alternative II unavailable once the principal balance fell to 408,070.82 and the buyers (Archambaults) were roughly $50,000 in arrears. Weter served a notice of default in June 1995, elected Alternative II, had the escrow agent release the buyers’ previously-signed quitclaim deeds, and recorded them. The buyers never tendered the full contract balance.
- Holding: The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s cancellation of the contract, quieting of title in the seller, recovery of possession, and award of contract attorney fees. The buyers were not entitled to relief from forfeiture under § 28-1-104, MCA, because they never tendered full compensation — there was no offer to pay the entire contract balance, only later deposition/trial statements of willingness.
- Reasoning: § 28-1-104, MCA, lets a defaulting party be relieved from a forfeiture “upon making full compensation to the other party,” except for a grossly negligent, willful, or fraudulent breach. Relief is available only by tendering full compensation — i.e., attempting to pay the entire obligation — citing Glacier Park Co. v. Mountain, Inc., 285 Mont. 420, 949 P.2d 229 (1997). Because the Archambaults made no such tender, the statutory predicate for relief was absent and the seller’s contractual cancellation/forfeiture stood.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: The leading modern Montana statement that a contract for deed’s cancellation-and-forfeiture clause is enforceable, and that the buyer’s anti-forfeiture lifeline (§ 28-1-104) is conditioned on tendering the full balance — not merely showing hardship or a belated willingness to pay. Operators should draft the staged-remedy structure (damages / cancellation-forfeiture / foreclosure) and follow the notice and escrow-deed mechanics; buyers must understand that to invoke equitable relief they must be ready to pay everything owed.
- Good-law status: Good law.
- Source (retrieved): FindLaw (Supreme Court of Montana opinion), https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mt-supreme-court/1314984.html ; AnyLaw, https://www.anylaw.com/case/weter-v-archambault/montana-supreme-court/12-20-2002/N7bBTWYBTlTomsSBUeCq · Verified: 2026-06-08
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: montana
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.