Lewis v. Premium Inv. Corp., No. 25510.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Citation568 S.E.2d 361,351 S.C. 167
Docket NumberNo. 25510.
PartiesWilliam LEWIS, Respondent, v. PREMIUM INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner.
Decision Date05 August 2002

351 S.C. 167
568 S.E.2d 361

William LEWIS, Respondent,
v.
PREMIUM INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner

No. 25510.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard February 7, 2002.

Decided August 5, 2002.


351 S.C. 168
Linda Weeks Gangi, of The Thompson Law Firm, of Conway, for petitioner

William Paul Young, of North Myrtle Beach, for respondent.

351 S.C. 169
Justice BURNETT

The Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in Lewis v. Premium Investment Corp., 341 S.C. 539, 535 S.E.2d 139 (Ct.App.2000). We affirm as modified.

FACTS

On October 29, 1976, Respondent William Lewis (Purchaser) entered into an installment sales contract to purchase real estate in North Myrtle Beach from Petitioner Premium Investment Corporation (Seller). The contract contains the following default provision:

In the event the Purchaser should fail to make any due installment, and such default shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days, the Seller shall have the right to declare this contract terminated and all amounts previously paid by the Purchaser will be retained by the Seller as rent.

Four months after executing the contract, Purchaser placed a mobile home on the lot and his family moved in. Purchaser made all payments through July 1988.1 After July 1988, no further payments were made.

In October 1989, one year after Purchaser's default, Seller mailed Purchaser a notice canceling the contract. The notice was returned "unclaimed" to Seller. Although sent by certified mail to the correct address, Purchaser asserts he did not receive the notice.

In 1992, Purchaser's wife contacted Seller's representative to determine if he would allow her to assume the payments. The representative passed away without making a commitment.

On August 27, 1996, Purchaser's attorney forwarded Seller a check for $2,451.34. Seller refused to accept the check.

At the time of default (August 1988), Purchaser had made 141 of the approximately 182 monthly payments and owed $2,440.14. The balance as of August 31, 1998, was $7,726.33.

351 S.C. 170
Purchaser brought this action for breach of contract and specific performance. In its amended answer and counterclaim, Seller alleged Purchaser was in default and sought an order terminating the contract. Alternatively, Seller sought judgment in the amount of $7,443, reasonable attorney's fees, and foreclosure of any equitable interest Purchaser may have obtained as a result of the transaction.2

The master-in-equity determined Purchaser was in default of the agreement and Seller had the right to terminate the agreement pursuant to its terms. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Purchaser had an equitable interest in the property and, therefore, Seller's right to seek forfeiture or to foreclose was subject to Purchaser's right of redemption which could not have been waived by the agreement. Id.

ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err by declining to apply the forfeiture provision of the installment land contract, instead determining Purchaser has an equitable interest in the property which includes a right of redemption upon default?

DISCUSSION

Whether an equitable right of redemption exists in spite of a strict forfeiture provision in an installment land contract has not been specifically decided by this Court. In deciding the answer to this question, we must determine whether equitable principles may alter the clear and unambiguous terms of the parties' contract.

Installment Land Contracts
Real property is often sold under contracts that provide for the payment of the purchase price in a series of installments. These contracts, usually termed installment land contracts, are drafted in many ways. Typically, the vendor retains legal title to the property until all of the purchase price has been paid . . . Also typically, the purchaser is
351 S.C. 171
entitled to immediate possession . . . Installment contracts almost always contain forfeiture clauses. When enforced, these clauses enable the vendor to terminate the contract, recover the property, and retain all installments paid when the purchaser defaults.

15 RICHARD R. POWELL, REAL PROPERTY '84D.01 at 3 (2000); Ellis v. Butterfield, 98 Idaho 644, 570 P.2d 1334, 1336 (1977) (installment land contract is "frequently called a `poor man's mortgage' because the vendor, as with a mortgage, finances the purchaser's acquisition of the property by accepting installment payments on the purchase price over a period of years, but the purchaser does not receive the benefit of those remedial statutes protecting the rights of mortgagors.").3 Contrary to existing mortgage protections, a seller may typically avoid foreclosure procedures by including a forfeiture remedy in the installment land contract. See Matthew Cole Bormuth, note, Real Estate B The Wyoming Installment Land Contract: A Mortgage in Sheep's Clothing? Or What You See Isn't What You Get, 28 LAND AND WATER LAW REVIEW 309 (1993); Juliet M. Moringiello, A Mortgage by Any Other Name: A Plea for the Uniform Treatment of Installment Land Contracts and Mortgages under the Bankruptcy Code, 100 DICK. L.R. 733 (1996) (forfeiture remedy makes installment land...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 practice notes
  • Bank v. Wingard Properties Inc., No. 4846.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 22, 2011
    ...S.E. 196, 209 (1928). The court has the power in equity to deny or delay forfeiture when fairness demands. Lewis v. Premium Inv. Corp., 351 S.C. 167, 172, 568 S.E.2d 361, 364 (2002). In Lewis, the court found it would be inequitable to enforce the forfeiture provision without first allowing......
  • Simpson v. Msa of Myrtle Beach, Inc., No. 26293.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 26, 2007
    ...in this State is that it is not the function of the court to rewrite contracts for parties. Lewis v. Premium 644 S.E.2d 674 Inv. Corp., 351 S.C. 167, 171, 568 S.E.2d 361, 363 In this case, we find the arbitration clause in the adhesion contract between Simpson and Addy wholly unconscionable......
  • Concord & Cumberland Horizontal Prop. Regime v. Concord & Cumberland, LLC, Appellate Case No. 2016-000076
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • August 8, 2018
    ...do not have the authority to alter contracts or to make new contracts for the parties."); 819 S.E.2d 176 Lewis v. Premium Inv. Corp. , 351 S.C. 167, 171, 568 S.E.2d 361, 363 (2002) ("It is not the function of the court to rewrite contracts for parties."). Next, the indemnity clause in the 2......
  • American LaFrance, LLC v. RT Jedburg Commerce Park, LLC (In re American LaFrance, LLC)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Delaware
    • November 2, 2011
    ...law because it is grossly disproportionate to the harm suffered on account of the alleged breach. See Lewis v. Premium Inv. Corp., 351 S.C. 167, 568 S.E.2d 361, 363 (2002) (Although “[p]arties to a contract may stipulate as to the amount of liquidated damages owed in the event of nonperform......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
42 cases
  • Bank v. Wingard Properties Inc., No. 4846.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 22, 2011
    ...S.E. 196, 209 (1928). The court has the power in equity to deny or delay forfeiture when fairness demands. Lewis v. Premium Inv. Corp., 351 S.C. 167, 172, 568 S.E.2d 361, 364 (2002). In Lewis, the court found it would be inequitable to enforce the forfeiture provision without first allowing......
  • Simpson v. Msa of Myrtle Beach, Inc., No. 26293.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 26, 2007
    ...in this State is that it is not the function of the court to rewrite contracts for parties. Lewis v. Premium 644 S.E.2d 674 Inv. Corp., 351 S.C. 167, 171, 568 S.E.2d 361, 363 In this case, we find the arbitration clause in the adhesion contract between Simpson and Addy wholly unconscionable......
  • Concord & Cumberland Horizontal Prop. Regime v. Concord & Cumberland, LLC, Appellate Case No. 2016-000076
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • August 8, 2018
    ...do not have the authority to alter contracts or to make new contracts for the parties."); 819 S.E.2d 176 Lewis v. Premium Inv. Corp. , 351 S.C. 167, 171, 568 S.E.2d 361, 363 (2002) ("It is not the function of the court to rewrite contracts for parties."). Next, the indemnity clause in the 2......
  • American LaFrance, LLC v. RT Jedburg Commerce Park, LLC (In re American LaFrance, LLC)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Delaware
    • November 2, 2011
    ...law because it is grossly disproportionate to the harm suffered on account of the alleged breach. See Lewis v. Premium Inv. Corp., 351 S.C. 167, 568 S.E.2d 361, 363 (2002) (Although “[p]arties to a contract may stipulate as to the amount of liquidated damages owed in the event of nonperform......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT