Younglove v. Graham & Hill, 526 P.2d 689 (Wyo. 1974)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 526 P.2d 689 (Wyo. 1974); 1974 Wyo. LEXIS 232
- Court / Year: Supreme Court of Wyoming, 1974 (Guthrie, J.)
- Topic tags: forfeiture, equitable_interest
- Facts: Younglove sold Park County land to Graham & Hill under a “Contract for Deed” for 3,000 February 1, 1973 installment plus interest. The contract allowed the seller, on 30 days’ notice of default, to “declare all payments theretofore made as liquidated damages and cancel this contract.” The seller gave notice; the buyer did not cure within 30 days and only later tendered the arrearage (less an asserted offset). The trial court refused to forfeit, finding “no substantial deviation or default,” and reinstated the contract.
- Holding: Reversed. Where a contract for deed contains a clear forfeiture clause and the buyer has materially defaulted after notice, a court of equity may not disregard the parties’ bargain absent “some special ground of equitable cognizance.” The Court ordered the forfeiture and restored possession to the seller.
- Reasoning: While “forfeitures are not favored” / “equity abhors a forfeiture” is a valid general proposition, “after competent parties have solemnly contracted and agreed to certain conditions, courts should exercise restraint in nullifying the terms thereof or rewriting the contract.” Equitable relief is “a dangerous jurisdiction which should not be extended” and does not reach “to disregard and set aside a valid stipulation of the parties.” A 29% down payment “standing alone” is not sufficient to trigger relief from forfeiture; the buyer bears the burden of proving an affirmative equitable ground, and none was established here.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Younglove is the controlling Wyoming statement that a bargained-for forfeiture clause in a contract for deed is enforceable per its terms. Wyoming is a strict-forfeiture / contract-governed jurisdiction: there is no automatic substantial-equity bar, and a buyer seeking to avoid forfeiture must plead and prove a specific equitable ground (fraud, waiver, estoppel, unclean hands), not merely that it paid a substantial down payment.
- Good-law status: Good law. Followed in barker-v-johnson-1979 and treemont-inc-v-hawley-1994.
- Source (retrieved): https://static.case.law/p2d/526/cases/0689-01.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.