Lange v. Farmers Federation Cooperative, Inc.
Decision Date | 17 January 1966 |
Docket Number | No. 1228.,1228. |
Citation | 249 F. Supp. 544 |
Parties | Herschel LANGE, t/a H. Lange Co., Claimant, v. FARMERS FEDERATION COOPERATIVE, INC., Bankrupt. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
James S. Howell and Oscar Stanton, Asheville, N. C., for claimant.
Herschel Lange, by this appeal from the Referee in Bankruptcy, seeks to recover all or some part of $3,000.00 which he paid to Farmers Federation Cooperative, Inc. (hereinafter called Federation) as a deposit on the purchase price of certain realty sold to Lange by the Federation. The Trustee in Bankruptcy rejected Lange's proof of claim, and was sustained in doing so by decision of the Referee.
The facts, as found by the Referee, appear to be as follows:
The foregoing findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous. Gen.Order in Bankruptcy No. 47.
The Referee held that Federation was entitled to retain the entire $3,000.00 — apparently because of the testimony that a condition of the sale was that "the earnest money would be forfeited". Lange's contrary contention, i. e., that he is entitled to recover the entire $3,000.00, is without merit. The much harder question is whether Lange is entitled to recover any part of his $3,000.00 deposit.
The question arises in the exercise of the bankruptcy jurisdiction of a federal court. Jurisdiction is not based on diversity of citizenship. "It is frequently said that the Erie doctrine Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 applies only in cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship." Wright, Federal Courts, Section 60 p. 217 (1963 Ed.). Even so, application of or absorption of state law, to the extent it can be ascertained, may be a wise approach. To the extent that there is a "ready made body of state law", it is well to draw on it. De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570, 76 S.Ct. 974, 100 L.Ed. 1415, 1428 (1956). But there is greater flexibility for the federal court than in Erie-type situations where state law is controlling. Wright, supra, at p. 217.
What is the law of North Carolina with respect to the retention of a deposit made at auction sale as declared by its Legislature in a statute or by its highest court? As far as I can ascertain,4 neither the Legislature of North Carolina nor its Supreme Court has spoken precisely on the question. In such a situation, a federal court must look for other indications of the state law, and carefully considered dicta of the state court carry weight, and may even, in the absence of any conflicting indication of the law of the state, be regarded as conclusive. Wright, Federal Courts, Section 58 p. 205 (1963 Ed.); 1 Barron & Holtzoff 41, Federal Practice & Procedure, Section 8.
Many times the North Carolina Supreme Court has expressed its abhorrence of penalties. It has made no difference to the court that such penalties are sometimes denominated as "liquidated damages". Weinstein v. Griffin, 241 N.C. 161, 84 S.E.2d 549, at 552 (1954). The court has always looked through the language of agreements to determine whether or not liquidated damages should be considered "unreasonable or oppressive" or "arbitrarily adopted without reference to the loss actually suffered and liable to arise in case of breach." Horn v. Poindexter, 176 N.C. 620, 97 S.E. 653 (1918). In Horn the supreme court reversed the decision of the lower court which had enforced a written contract providing for a performance bond in the amount of $800.00 to be applied as liquidated damage and not as a penalty in the event of breach. The court stated its adherence to the principle that a just compensation is the result to be sought, and referred to a tendency to regard these stipulations for a fixed sum to cover unascertained damages as being in the nature of a penalty which will not be enforced. The case was remanded for determination of actual damages suffered without regard to the amount designated in the contract as liquidated damages. Again in Crawford v. Allen, 189 N.C. 434, 127 S.E. 521 (1925), the court disregarded the written contractual agreements to pay $500.00 and $1,500.00 as liquidated damages, and intimated (although it did not so hold) that a court exercising equitable jurisdiction would regard them as deposits to cover liquidated damages. The court said: "A court of equity, which does not favor forfeitures, and will not enforce penalties, but seeks to do justice in accordance with the rights of both parties, as determined by an enlightened conscience, will not be swift to sustain an undertaking to pay liquidated damages, where there has been no injury and no loss." Id., 127 S.E. at 525. It was explained later in the opinion that the reason there was "no loss" was simply because the realty had appreciated in value.
If the foregoing cases indicate the law of North Carolina with respect to forfeiture provisions in formal written contracts, it cannot be lightly assumed that the law would be more harsh with respect to forfeitures and penalties arrived at informally and resting purely upon the oral declaration of an auctioneer to which the only assent is a silent one.5
Williston summarizes the principle prohibiting the enforcement of forfeitures or penalties, even though they may be described as "liquidated damages" as follows:
The distinction between penalty and forfeiture, on the one hand, and liquidated damages, on the other, is a much litigated...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re OPM Leasing Services, Inc.
...and Manufacturers, Inc., 674 F.2d 134, 141 (2d Cir. 1982); In re Tastyeast, Inc., 126 F.2d at 881-82; Lange v. Farmers Federation Cooperative, Inc., 249 F.Supp. 544, 546 (W.D.N.C.1966); In re Holiday Mart, Inc., 9 B.R. 99, 107 (Bkrtcy.D. Hawaii 1981). New York law governs the instant transa......
-
Burnett v. United States
...even, in the absence of any conflicting indication of the law of the state, be regarded as conclusive". Lange v. Farmers Federation Cooperative, Inc. (D.C.N.C.1966) 249 F. Supp. 544, 546. This is especially so when the dictum seems to represent the "considered dictum" of the Court. See Prie......
-
Van Hosen v. Bankers Trust Co.
...contractual sense, ordinarily means the taking away or loss of rights and interest in property. See Lange v. Farmers Federation Cooperative, Inc., 249 F.Supp. 544, 547--548 (W.D.N.C.1966); State v. Cowen, 231 Iowa 1117, 1122--1123, 3 N.W.2d 176 (1942); Arthur v. Trindel, 168 Neb. 429, 96 N.......
-
In re Governor's Island
...powers to relieve purchasers from unconscionable consequences of some liquidated damages clauses. Lange v. Farmers Federation Cooperative, Inc., 249 F.Supp. 544 (W.D.N.C.1966). The same equitable power could also be used to relieve a seller from the effects of an unconscionable liquidated d......