Hicks v. Dunn, 622 So. 2d 914 (Ala. 1993)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 622 So. 2d 914 (Ala. 1993)
- Court / Year: Supreme Court of Alabama, 1993
- Topic tags: equitable_interest · forfeiture · foreclosure · bond_for_title
- Facts: A dispute over a “bond for title” (Alabama’s term for an installment contract for the sale of land) under which the vendor retained legal title pending payment of the purchase price. The vendee sought specific performance / to enforce the right to acquire title.
- Holding: The opinion characterizes a bond for title as “an executory contract for the sale of land which creates an equitable mortgage on the land” (622 So. 2d at 915 n.1). The vendee who has performed (or is ready, willing, and able to perform) holds an equitable interest the vendee may enforce by specific performance; the vendor’s retained interest functions as security for the unpaid purchase money.
- Reasoning: Alabama treats the installment land contract as a security device. The “equitable mortgage” framing connects the bond for title to mortgage principles — the vendor holds title as security, and the vendee’s equity is protected through the equitable remedy of specific performance rather than left to bare forfeiture. This definitional footnote is repeatedly quoted by later Alabama courts (e.g., McKinney v. McKinney) as the canonical statement of what a bond for title is.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Establishes the operative Alabama label — a contract for deed is a bond for title that creates an equitable mortgage. That framing is the doctrinal hook a defaulting buyer uses to argue the seller must respect the buyer’s equity (and, in substantial-equity cases, pursue a foreclosure-style remedy) rather than simply declare a forfeiture. Read together with Gay v. Tompkins (vendee’s remedy is specific performance, not a statutory mortgagor’s redemption) and Halstead v. Windsor (forfeiture disfavored absent a time-of-the-essence clause and where the seller accepted late payments).
- Good-law status: Good law; the n.1 definition is routinely followed and quoted by later Alabama appellate decisions.
- Source (retrieved): https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1151612/hicks-v-dunn/ (CourtListener record; citation 622 So. 2d 914, 1993 WL 210771) · Verified: 2026-06-08
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: alabama
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.