California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1442 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A condition involving a forfeiture must be strictly interpreted against the party for whose benefit it is created.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1943–2025 · leading case: Boston LLC v. Juarez, 245 Cal. App. 4th 75 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
Boston LLC v. Juarez, 245 Cal. App. 4th 75 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “Forfeiture is avoided where possible and forfeiture clauses are strictly construed against the party they benefit “A condition involving a forfeiture must be strictly interpreted against the party for whose benefit it is created.”
Kendall v. Ernest Pestana, Inc., 709 P.2d 837 (Cal. 1985). “919; Civ. Code, § 1442 ["A condition involving a forfeiture must be strictly interpreted against the party for whose benefit it is created.”
In re Premier Golf Props., LP, 564 B.R. 660 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2016). “” The policy of abhorring forfeitures has been followed in the case law wherein courts have strictly construed the language of contracts to avoid forfeiture.”
Chase v. Blue Cross of California, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1216 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). “(Civ. Code, § 1442.) Conversely, as set forth above, arbitration is favored in the law.”
Broden v. Marin Humane Soc'y, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2208 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999). “Defendant relies on the plain language of subdivision (h). Plaintiff perceives subdivision (h) as calling for forfeiture of seized animals, thus *1224 invoking the rule that forfeiture provisions are to receive a narrow construction.”
MacDonald Props., Inc. v. Bel-Air Country Club, 72 Cal. App. 3d 693 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977). “) But because conditions subsequent may result in forfeiture, they are disfavored at law and normally interpreted as covenants (Civ. Code, § 1442). We so interpret the restrictions here.”
Rose, LLC v. Treasure Island, LLC, 445 P.3d 860 (Nev. 2019). “3d 452 , 460 (2016) (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1442 (West 2007) ); Entrepreneur, Ltd.”
ABI, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 153 Cal. App. 3d 669 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984). “” Civil Code section 1442 is likewise applicable to contracts with public entities.”
Minelian v. Manzella, 215 Cal. App. 3d 457 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). “) We must also keep in mind the principle that: “the law abhors forfeitures, and will strictly construe forfeiture provisions against the party in whose behalf they are invoked.”
In re Art & Architecture Books of the 21st Century, 518 B.R. 43 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2014). “” The policy of abhorring forfeitures has been followed in the case law wherein courts have strictly construed the language of contracts to avoid forfeiture.”
Div. of Labor Standards Enf't v. Dick Bullis, Inc., 72 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 52 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1977). “) Civil Code section 1442 provides that “A condition involving a forfeiture must be strictly interpreted against the party for whose benefit it is created.”
Cnty. of Sacramento v. Ins. Co. of the West, 139 Cal. App. 3d 561 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983). “2d 1385 ]; Civ. Code, § 1442; see also People v. Wilshire Ins.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.