of the contract. Nelson, 197 So. at 514; Rader, 130 So. at 18. Inequitable forfeiture is applicable where a party has substantially complied with the terms of the agreement. Grover v. Jacksonville Golfair Inc., 914 So.2d 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (Thomas, J., concurring); see also Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 448 So.2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (explaining that it was unconscionable to approve a forfeiture where a long-term lease existed, there was no default in rent, and the lessee promptly cured a city violation by paying the $495 fine). An increase in property value over the term of a lease is not enough to mitigate a forfeiture where Appellant has done nothing to bring about the increased value. Cf. Roschman Partners v. S.K. Partners I, Ltd., 627 So.2d 2, 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (<HOLDING>), with August Tobler, Inc. v. Goolsby, 67 So.2d
holding that scope of property subject to forfeiture is defined by the instrument creating an interest in the property holding that forfeiture was inequitable where purchaser hired experts to improve the property and attorneys to rezone the property which substantially increased the value holding that the district court correctly ordered that the motor home be forfeited without regard to any increased value that the defendant may have added irrespective of whether the increased value to the converted property is the result of wise investment personal effort by the defendant or by adding the defendants personal untainted funds because the converted property is traceable to the unlawful monetary transaction we conclude that the property is subject to forfeiture under 18 usc  982a1 holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition holding that with respect to civil forfeiture actions property issues concerning ownership are governed by the laws of the state in which the property is located