Long v. Burson, 182 Md. App. 1, 957 A.2d 173 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2008)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 182 Md. App. 1, 957 A.2d 173 (2008). (Reporter volume/page reflected from secondary indexing; the precise pinpoint pages are flagged for verification — the opinion itself was retrieved via FindLaw, below.)
- Court / Year: Maryland Court of Special Appeals (Md.’s intermediate appellate court, now styled the Appellate Court of Maryland), 2008. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.
- Topic tags: forfeiture · foreclosure · equitable_interest · remedy_regime
- Facts: Ivor and Elmarine Elphage sold residential property under a 1997 land installment contract governed by Md. Real Property Article, Title 10, Subtitle 1. The buyer’s interest was later assigned to Arthur Long. After the purchaser defaulted, the sellers did not pursue forfeiture or a self-help repossession; instead the matter proceeded to a foreclosure sale, and the dispute on appeal concerned distribution of the foreclosure proceeds (~$114,969.87) and an award of attorney’s fees to the Elphages.
- Holding: A vendor under a Maryland land installment contract retains only a security interest; equitable title passes to the purchaser on execution of the contract. Consequently, “a seller who seeks to repossess from the purchaser [of] property sold under a land installment contract only may do so by a foreclosure action.” Forfeiture and self-help repossession are not available remedies; foreclosure is the exclusive means of enforcement. (The court vacated and remanded the attorney’s-fee award for application of the proper standard.)
- Reasoning: The court read Title 10, Subtitle 1 as treating the land installment contract as a lien/security instrument — the vendor holds legal title only as security for the debt, while the purchaser holds equitable title from inception. Because the purchaser is the equitable owner, the vendor cannot simply terminate and retake; the vendor must invoke the judicial foreclosure machinery (Md. Rule 14-205 et seq.) to reach any interest beyond its security interest. This protects the equity the purchaser has built, consistent with the Skendzel anti-forfeiture principle (skendzel-v-marshall-1973) and Sebastian v. Floyd (sebastian-v-floyd-1979).
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Maryland is a treat-as-mortgage jurisdiction. An operator selling on a land installment contract in Maryland cannot forfeit on default and cannot evict the buyer as a tenant; the only path to recover the property is a judicial foreclosure, with the buyer entitled to any surplus. Buyers hold equitable title and the equity protection that comes with it.
- Good-law status: Good law. Consistent with the statutory scheme (RP §§ 10-101 to 10-108) and the long-settled Maryland view of installment land contracts as security instruments.
- Source (retrieved): https://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-special-appeals/1294731.html · Verified: 2026-06-08
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: maryland
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.