Lexplug logoLexplug

Sebastian v. Floyd

Supreme Court of Kentucky
585 S.W.2d 381 (1979)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A forfeiture clause in an installment land sale contract is unenforceable. Upon the buyer's default, the seller's sole remedy is to seek a judicial foreclosure sale of the property, treating the arrangement as analogous to a mortgage.


Facts:

  • On November 8, 1974, Jean Sebastian entered into a contract with Perl and Zona Floyd to purchase a house and lot for $10,900.
  • Sebastian made a down payment of $3,800 and agreed to pay the balance in monthly installments of $120.
  • The contract contained a forfeiture clause stating that if Sebastian defaulted on payments for 60 days, the Floyds could terminate the contract and keep all payments made as rent and liquidated damages.
  • Over the next 21 months, Sebastian missed seven installments but paid a total of $5,480 to the Floyds.
  • Of the total amount paid, $4,300, representing nearly 40% of the contract price, had been applied to the principal balance.

Procedural Posture:

  • Perl and Zona Floyd sued Jean Sebastian in the Kenton Circuit Court (trial court) to enforce the contract's forfeiture clause.
  • Sebastian filed a counterclaim seeking the return of all payments made under the contract.
  • The case was referred to a master commissioner, who recommended enforcing the forfeiture.
  • The Kenton Circuit Court entered a judgment adopting the commissioner's recommendations in favor of the Floyds.
  • Sebastian, as appellant, appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
  • The Supreme Court of Kentucky granted discretionary review, with Sebastian as the movant and the Floyds as respondents.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a forfeiture clause in an installment land sale contract, which allows the seller to terminate the contract and retain all prior payments upon the buyer's default, enforceable in Kentucky?


Opinions:

Majority - Aker, J.

No. A forfeiture clause in an installment land sale contract is not enforceable; such a contract is to be treated as a mortgage, and the seller's remedy is a judicial sale of the property. The court reasoned that there is no practical distinction between an installment land sale contract and a purchase money mortgage, as both involve the seller financing the buyer's purchase and using the property as collateral. Just as a mortgagor has a right to redeem the property and is protected from forfeiture, a buyer in a land contract who has built up equity should be similarly protected. Treating the seller's interest as a lien and requiring a judicial sale protects the buyer's equity while ensuring the seller receives the balance due on the contract plus expenses. This approach aligns with the modern trend and overrules prior Kentucky cases like Miles v. Proffitt and Kravitz v. Grimm, which upheld such forfeiture clauses.



Analysis:

This decision fundamentally changes the legal landscape for installment land contracts in Kentucky by aligning them with the modern trend of treating them as equitable mortgages. It provides significant new protections for buyers, preventing sellers from obtaining a windfall by keeping both substantial payments and the property itself upon a minor default. By invalidating forfeiture clauses and mandating judicial foreclosure, the court ensures that a buyer's accumulated equity is not unjustly lost. This ruling makes installment land contracts a less risky financing method for buyers, but also imposes the more formal and costly foreclosure process on sellers seeking a remedy for default.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Sebastian v. Floyd (1979)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"