Crowell v. Williams, 273 Ga. App. 676, 615 S.E.2d 797 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 273 Ga. App. 676, 615 S.E.2d 797 (2005)
- Court / Year: Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2005
- Topic tags: forfeiture · rescission · restitution · equitable_interest · bond_for_title
- Facts: Crowell (buyer) contracted to purchase real property under an arrangement the court characterized as an “installment sale” or “bond for title” — the seller (Williams) was to hold legal title until the full purchase price was paid. Crowell paid a substantial down payment, then defaulted on the balance. Williams retained the property, kept the payments, and resold the property (at a higher price). Crowell sued to recover the money he had paid. The trial court denied recovery, treating the buyer as having forfeited the payments.
- Holding: Reversed in relevant part. Where a seller, in response to the buyer’s default, in effect rescinds an installment-sale / bond-for-title contract by reasserting possession (and reselling), the seller must return the purchase money the buyer paid, less an offset for the seller’s actual loss caused by the buyer’s non-performance. A defaulting bond-for-title buyer is not automatically subject to forfeiture of payments absent express contract language; the default rule is restitution to status quo ante.
- Reasoning: Rescission under O.C.G.A. § 13-4-62 requires that both parties be “restored to the condition in which they were before the contract was made.” Citing McDaniel v. Gray & Co., 69 Ga. 433 (1882), the court applied the long-standing Georgia rule that a seller who retakes possession on the buyer’s default has elected to rescind, giving rise to an implied obligation to restore the purchase money paid, reduced by the amount necessary to prevent actual loss to the seller (e.g., the benefit of the buyer’s use/occupancy and any decline in value).
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Georgia treats the bond-for-title / contract-for-deed instrument as a security arrangement, not a pure forfeiture device. An operator who repossesses on default generally cannot keep both the land and all the payments — the repossession is an election to rescind that triggers a net refund of the buyer’s money. A pure forfeiture-of-payments outcome requires clear contract language and may still be limited by equity.
- Good-law status: Good law; routinely cited for the rescission-restitution rule in Georgia installment land sales.
- Source (retrieved): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1492652.html · Verified: 2026-06-08
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: georgia
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.