To access case, press here
Appellant-plaintiff Ronald Hooker appeals the trial court‟s order calculating the damages owed to Hooker on his complaint for breach of contract against appellees-defendants Jigme K. Norbu and Yaling Huang (collectively, the appellees). Hooker argues that the trial court erroneously neglected to include interest payments that should have been made by the appellees as part of the damages award.
Conclusion (slip op. at 2): Finding that Hooker elected the remedy of forfeiture rather than foreclosure and is therefore prohibited from recovering the missed payments, we affirm.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 8): Hooker elected to have the Contract forfeited—cancelled. Having made that decision, he is no longer entitled to enforce it. He is entitled to retain the appellees‟ payments made prior to their abandonment of the real estate as compensation for that time. He is entitled to recover for his actual losses—the tax payments he was forced to make, the personal property taken by the appellees, and his attorney fees and costs . . . Hooker offered no evidence that he suffered any loss in the value of the real estate or that the appellees committed waste thereon, so he is not entitled to damages for those reasons.