Daily Development for Friday, February 25, 1996

By: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
randolphp@umkc.edu

MORTGAGES; EQUITABLE MORTGAGES; INSTALLMENT LAND CONTRACTS:. Upon default in an installment land contract, trial court has discretion as to whether to uphold forfeiture and grant summary possession or to require installment contract seller to foreclose contract as an equitable mortgage.

Paraguay Place-View Trust v. Gray, 981 P.2d 681 (Colo. App. 1999).

In 1994 the defendants entered into an installment land contract as purchasers. In 1997 defendants failed to make payments under the installment land contract and the plaintiff commenced a forcible entry and detainer action ("FED") action to obtain possession of the property. Defendants argued that the correct remedy for a default under the installment land contract was a foreclosure action and not a FED action. The District Court held that plaintiff was required to bring a foreclosure action to obtain possession of the land and therefore dismissed the FED action.

Plaintiff contended that the trial court erred by requiring that a foreclosure action be brought in order to obtain possession of the property in light of a Colorado statute stating that an FED action is available " "when a vendee having obtained possession under an agreement to purchase lands or tenements, and having failed to comply with his agreement, withholds possession thereof from his vendor, or assigns, after demand therefor is duly made."

Defendant pointed to a more recent Colorado statute that provides for foreclosure of installment land contracts.

 3838305, C.R.S.1998, provides, in relevant part that:

" (2) For the purposes of this article, an installment land contract vendor of property shall be considered as a lienor for the unpaid portion of the purchase price, interest, and other amounts provided under the installment land contract and shall be subject to all requirements in this article with respect to lienors; but such installment land contract vendor shall not be considered as an owner as to any portion of such property.

(3) For the purposes of this article, an installment land contract vendee of property shall be considered as an owner except as to any portion of such property that such vendee may thereafter have transferred, as evidenced by a recorded instrument, and such vendee shall be subject to all requirements in this article with respect to owners."

The appeals court held concluded that this statute really just restates existing Colorado law, and that Colorado precedent had established that when a default occurs in an installment land contract and the vendor desires to obtain possession of the property, the vendor may commence an FED, but the court, upon appropriate request, may determine whether the vendor may proceed with the FED or if the vendor must foreclose on the property giving the vendee/owner the right to cure the default and the right of redemption.

Various factors are considered by the courts when determining whether or not an installment land contract should be treated as a mortgage such as the amount of the vendee's equity in the property, the length of the default period, whether the vendee made any improvements to the property and whether the property has been adequately maintained.

The court stated that requiring that vendors always go through the foreclosure process would effect a sweeping change in the way land installment contracts have been historically treated. Id., at 684. But, after reviewing the impact of such a change, the court held that a trial court nevertheless has the authority to order a foreclosure in the appropriate case.

Comment 1: Of course, a number of states, and the Restatement of Mortgages, have taken the position that an installment land contract should be treated as a mortgage all of (or most of) the time. Other states, like Colorado, and also Kansas, leave the discretion to the courts.

The idea is that many installment land contracts are "no down" or "low down" seller financing deals, and it seems unfair to require a lengthy and expensive process for the vendor to get the property back if the vendee defaults when it has paid the vendor very little and has made little investment of its own in the property. Thus, where the vendee defaults when it has no real interest to protect, the vendor in these states is not required to proceed to a judicial foreclosure. But if there is a significant vendee's interest, the courts recognize an equity of redemption which must be foreclosed. Kansas courts generally look primarily at the percentage of the contract price that has been paid, but Colorado's broader group of factors would appear to insure more equitable protection of substantial interests of borrowers.

A few states, like Iowa, use the installment contract device regularly and define the rights of the parties by statute, permitting forfeiture only after notice and opportunity to cure. Michigan law is similar.

Comment 2: From a practice standpoint, the editor is seeing more drafting of installment land contracts with private power of sale rights written in, so that if the courts refuse to grant forfeiture, the vendor at least has a fighting chance to argue that he is entitled to avoid the judicial process and foreclose privately. (Not all states permit private foreclosure, of course.)

Comment 3: If all installment land contracts were "low down" deals and no purchase money mortgages fit the same description, the editor might buy in to the special treatment of installment land contracts. But the fact is that installment land contracts can and are used in all manner of financial abuses, and to the editor there is no reason other than inertia to treat this instrument as a class any differently than states treat mortgages.

Readers are urged to respond, comment, and argue with the daily development or the editor's comments about it.

Items in the Daily Development section generally are extracted from the Quarterly Report on Developments in Real Estate Law, published by the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law. Subscriptions to the Quarterly Report are available to Section members only. The cost is nominal. For the last six years, these Reports have been collated, updated, indexed and bound into an Annual Survey of Developments in Real Estate Law, volumes 1‑6, published by the ABA Press. The Annual Survey volumes are available for sale to the public. For the Report or the Survey, contact Maria Tabor at the ABA. (312) 988 5590 or mtabor@staff.abanet.org

Items reported here and in the ABA publications are for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or in the forming of decisions in legal matters. The same is true of all commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT list. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.

Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a source that is readily accessible by members of the general public, and should take that fact into account in evaluating confidentiality issues.

ABOUT DIRT:

DIRT is an Internet discussion group for serious real estate professionals. Message volume varies, but commonly runs 5 ‑ 10 messages per workday.

Daily Developments are posted every workday.

To subscribe to Dirt, send an e-mail to:

To:

ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu

Subject:

[Does not matter]

Text in body of message

Subscribe Dirt [your name]

To cancel your subscription to Dirt, send an e-mail to:

To:

ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu

Subject:

[Does not matter]

Text in body of message

Signoff Dirt

For information on other commands, send the message Help to the listserv address.

DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find this service more valuable, it is named “Brokerdirt.” But residential specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you subscribe to Brokerdirt, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as Brokerdirt carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.

To subscribe to Brokerdirt, send an e-mail to:

To:

ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu

Subject:

[Does not matter]

Text in body of message

Subscribe Brokerdirt [your name]

To cancel your subscription to Brokerdirt, send an e-mail to:

To:

ListServ@listserv.umkc.edu

Subject:

[Does not matter]

Text in body of message

Signoff Brokerdirt

DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants permission for copying or distribution of Daily Developments for educational purposes, including professional continuing education, provided that no charge is imposed for such distribution and that appropriate credit is given to Professor Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.

DIRT has a WebPage at: http://www.umkc.edu/dirt/