Howard v. Temple, 172 Ohio App.3d 21, 2007-Ohio-3074, 872 N.E.2d 1260 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2007)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: Howard v. Temple, 172 Ohio App.3d 21, 2007-Ohio-3074, 872 N.E.2d 1260 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist., Highland County 2007). Docket No. 06CA32; decided June 1, 2007.
- Court / Year: Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth Appellate District, Highland County, 2007 (opinion by McFarland, P.J.; Kline and Abele, JJ., concurring). (Note: secondary databases sometimes label this a First District opinion; the official [Cite as] line and docket No. 06CA32 confirm it is the Fourth District, arising from the Highland County Court of Common Pleas.)
- Topic tags: forfeiture · remedies · election-of-remedies · deficiency · consumer-protection
- Facts: In December 2002 the Temples (vendees) entered a land installment contract to buy property from Kenneth Howard / Howard Companies for 6,000 difference between the contract price and the resale price — i.e., a deficiency. The trial court awarded Howard the $6,000. The Temples appealed, arguing that because Howard had elected the forfeiture remedy under R.C. 5313.08, R.C. 5313.10 made that remedy exclusive and barred any deficiency.
- Holding: A vendor who elects forfeiture under R.C. 5313.08 is limited to the measure of recovery in R.C. 5313.10 and may NOT obtain a deficiency judgment. The court held that “R.C. 5313.10 provides the exclusive remedy available to a vendor following the forfeiture of a land installment contract, and the statute does not permit deficiency judgments.” A vendor’s recovery is capped at the amount by which the sums paid by the vendee fall short of the property’s fair rental value, plus any amount for deterioration or destruction of the property caused by the vendee’s use — not the gap between the contract price and a later resale price. The trial court’s $6,000 award was reversed.
- Reasoning: R.C. 5313.10 provides that the election of foreclosure-and-judicial- sale (R.C. 5313.07) or forfeiture-and-restitution (R.C. 5313.08) is an exclusive remedy that “bars further action on the contract under any other provision of law in behalf of the vendor,” except to recover the fair-rental-value shortfall and deterioration. By choosing forfeiture and taking back the property, Howard exhausted his statutory remedy. The court characterized R.C. Chapter 5313 as “essentially a consumer protection law” designed to prevent a windfall to a vendor who has already collected substantial sums under the contract and/or recovered the property. Allowing a post-forfeiture deficiency would hand the vendor exactly that windfall — the property back plus a money judgment for the price shortfall — which the statute forecloses.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: This is the controlling Ohio authority on what a seller gives up by choosing forfeiture. Under Ohio’s land installment contract statute, the two statutory remedies — foreclosure/judicial sale (R.C. 5313.07) and forfeiture/restitution (R.C. 5313.08) — are mutually exclusive, and electing forfeiture caps the seller’s recovery at the R.C. 5313.10 measure (fair-rental shortfall + deterioration) and bars any deficiency. For operators: if you expect the contract to be substantially “underwater” on a resale, forfeiture leaves the deficiency on the table — the foreclosure path (with a judicial sale and possible deficiency) is the route to pursue a money shortfall, not forfeiture-and-restitution. Drafting a contractual deficiency clause does not override R.C. 5313.10. For buyers: once the seller forfeits and retakes the property, the buyer is not exposed to a deficiency judgment for the price gap; the buyer’s only residual exposure is the fair-rental-value shortfall and physical damage.
- Good-law status: Good law. The decision applies the plain text of R.C. 5313.10 (election of remedies / exclusivity) and has not been overruled or superseded by statute; R.C. Chapter 5313 remains in force with the same exclusive-remedy and forfeiture-measure provisions. It is routinely cited in Ohio practice for the rule that a forfeiting vendor cannot recover a deficiency.
- Source (retrieved):
- Full opinion text (Harvard Caselaw Access Project / static.case.law): https://static.case.law/ohio-app-3d/172/cases/0021-01.json (172 Ohio App.3d 21, 2007-Ohio-3074)
- FindLaw (parallel 872 N.E.2d 1260): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/oh-court-of-appeals/1174834.html
- Verified: 2026-06-08
▸ For Sellers / Operators — In Ohio, your statutory remedies on a defaulted land contract — foreclosure/judicial sale (R.C. 5313.07) and forfeiture/restitution (R.C. 5313.08) — are mutually exclusive (R.C. 5313.10). Howard v. Temple is the case that drives the decision: electing forfeiture forfeits your deficiency. If you take the property back by forfeiture, your recovery is statutorily capped at the fair-rental-value shortfall plus deterioration — you cannot also sue for the gap between the contract price and a lower resale price. If you need to chase a price shortfall, you must go the foreclosure route instead. A contractual deficiency clause will not survive R.C. 5313.10. See forfeiture-vs-foreclosure and the ohio page.
▸ For Buyers — Once the seller elects forfeiture and retakes the property, Howard v. Temple protects you from a deficiency judgment for the contract-price-versus- resale-price gap. Your residual exposure is limited to the fair-rental-value shortfall and physical damage to the property.
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: ohio (controlling — applies R.C. 5313.10 exclusive-remedy / no-deficiency rule). Compare Ohio’s statutory-cancellation regime in forfeiture-vs-foreclosure against the equity-based approach of skendzel-v-marshall-1973 (Indiana).
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Howard v. Temple construes Ohio’s land installment contract statute (R.C. Chapter 5313); outcomes turn on which remedy the vendor elects and the facts of each default. Confirm the opinion is still good law and consult a licensed Ohio attorney before relying on it.