Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Skendzel v. Marshall

(1973)

Supreme Court of Indiana - 301 N.E.2d 641, 261 Ind. 226

tl;dr:

In a contract for the sale of land, the vendor retains the legal title to the property as security for payment, but the vendee gets equitable title to the property as soon as the contract begins.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Skendzel v. Marshall

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Skendzel v. Marshall case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingSkendzel v. Marshall case brief facts & holding

Facts:Burkowski and Marshall entered into a contract for the sale...

Holding:The court held that a forfeiture and repossession would be...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Skendzel v. Marshall case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Skendzel v. Marshall | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Hunter, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's decision and ruled in favor of plaintiff-respondents seeking possession of real estate through a forfeiture clause in a land sale contract. The defendants defaulted on payments, and the plaintiffs sought to enforce the forfeiture provision. The Court of Appeals found that the provision was significant and that the defendants' affirmative defense of waiver was not accepted. The Supreme Court of Indiana established that a vendor can waive strict compliance with a land sale contract's provisions by accepting overdue or irregular payments, but must give specific notice of their intent to no longer be indulgent and insist on their right of forfeiture unless the default is paid within a reasonable and specified time. The court must determine whether a $21,000 forfeiture in a land contract is reasonable, considering the circumstances of the case, such as the purchaser's intent and the market conditions. The Supreme Court of Indiana has established that in conditional land contracts, the vendee acquires equitable title at the time of contract consummation and assumes the risk of loss and appreciation in value. The amount paid by the vendee must be considered in relation to the total contract price, and a forfeiture clause for liquidated damages that results in substantial injustice is inconsistent with fairness and equity.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Skendzel v. Marshall case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurrence), author: Prentice, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

Prentice, J. clarifies that enforcing forfeiture provisions in installment sales contracts is appropriate, but a vendee seeking to avoid forfeiture must demonstrate the inequity of enforcement. If the vendee has little or no equity in the property, the court should declare a forfeiture. If the vendee has abandoned the property, released it, or failed to assert their claim in a timely manner, they should be barred from claiming equity. The court should grant the vendor maximum relief that is consistent with equity against a defaulting vendee, even if the court deems forfeiture to be unjust. The transaction should be treated as a note and mortgage, with provisions such as increased interest during periods of default, acceleration of the due date of the entire unpaid principal and interest upon a default continuing beyond a reasonable grace period, provisions for attorneys' fees and other expenses incidental to foreclosure, waiver of relief from valuation and appraisement laws, and for receivers.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Skendzel v. Marshall case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Skendzel v. Marshall

Chat for Skendzel v. Marshall
brief-637
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.