Mattern v. Ward (2024)

Mattern v. Ward, 241 N.E.3d 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024)

Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.

• Citation: Mattern v. Ward, 241 N.E.3d 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (Lynn Mattern, Appellant-Plaintiff/Cross-Appellee v. Courtney Ward, Appellee-Defendant/Cross- Appellant), Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-PL-2493, filed July 18, 2024. Unpublished memorandum decision (Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D)) — reported in the North Eastern Reporter but not binding precedent; affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded with instructions.
• Court / Year: Court of Appeals of Indiana, 2024.
• Topic tags: forfeiture · foreclosure · abandonment · equitable_interest · Skendzel-exception · remedies
• Facts: Buyer (Ward) agreed to purchase Indiana real estate from Seller (Mattern) on a land contract for $75,000\ast \ast ,payableat\ast \ast$450/month with the balance accruing interest at 5%. Buyer was also required to pay taxes and insurance and was contractually prohibited from abandoning the property; the contract defined abandonment and contained a forfeiture/cancellation clause providing that, on default, unless Buyer had paid more than $50,000\ast \ast oftheprice,Sellercouldcancelthecontractandrepossess.Buyerdefaultedbyfailingtopay,havingpaidonly\ast \ast$21,400 total, and the evidence showed she had (1) made no payment since September 2019; (2) left the real estate in December 2019; (3) enrolled her children in school in Georgia in January 2020; and (4) stopped making regular utility payments in December 2019. Seller sued for possession under Ind. Code § 32-30-3-5 and money damages. After a bench trial, the trial court held that foreclosure (not forfeiture) was the proper remedy and that Buyer should have an opportunity to redeem. Seller appealed.
• Holding: The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that forfeiture — not foreclosure — was the appropriate remedy because the buyer had abandoned the property. Abandonment fits squarely within the recognized exception under which forfeiture is permitted, so the seller was entitled to cancel the contract and repossess rather than being forced to foreclose and grant the buyer a redemption period.
• Reasoning: The court applied the Skendzel v. Marshall framework. On a foreclosure, the buyer retains a lien and, once the contract balance is paid from a sale, keeps any surplus; forfeiture, by contrast, “divests property without compensation … terminat[ing] an existing contract without restitution.” Indiana law permits forfeiture only in limited circumstances: “(1) an abandoning or absconding [buyer] or (2) where the [buyer] has paid a minimal amount and the [seller’s] security interest in the property has been jeopardized by the acts or omissions of the [buyer].” On these facts — no payments since September 2019, vacating the property, relocating the children’s schooling to Georgia, and ceasing utility payments — the buyer had abandoned the real estate, triggering the first Skendzel exception. (Only $21,400of$75,000 had been paid, well under the contract’s $50,000 cancellation threshold, so the “minimal amount” rationale also cut against the buyer.) Forfeiture was therefore the correct remedy, and the trial court erred in ordering foreclosure with redemption.
• Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Mattern is a recent, concrete application of the abandonment exception that Skendzel preserved. It confirms that even in a “treat-as-mortgage” state like Indiana — where a buyer with substantial equity normally cannot be summarily forfeited — forfeiture remains the proper remedy against a buyer who has truly walked away: stopped paying, vacated, moved out of state, and abandoned utilities. For operators, the practical lessons are (a) define “abandonment” in the contract and document the buyer’s departure (vacancy, relocation, school enrollment elsewhere, unpaid utilities), and (b) where abandonment is proven and payments are minimal, expect courts to allow cancellation and repossession rather than forcing a foreclosure sale with a redemption window. For buyers, the case is a caution: walking away from the property forfeits the Skendzel equity protections that a defaulting-but-present buyer with substantial equity would otherwise enjoy.
• Good-law status: Good law (as persuasive authority). It correctly applies and reaffirms the Skendzel v. Marshall abandonment exception, consistent with McLemore v. McLemore, 827 N.E.2d 1135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Caveat: Mattern is an unpublished memorandum decision under Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D) and is therefore not binding precedent — it illustrates and applies settled Indiana law rather than creating new law. Not overruled or superseded.
• Source (retrieved):
  • Google Scholar (full opinion, 241 N.E.3d 616; Case No. 22A-PL-2493; filed July 18, 2024): https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=334726401043264985
  • Dinsmore / Indiana Commercial Foreclosure Law (John D. Waller), case report quoting the opinion’s facts, rule, holding, and rationale (corroborating secondary source): https://www.commercialforeclosureblog.com/2025/10/proof-of-abandonment-results-in-land-contract-forfeiture.html
  • Verified: 2026-06-08

▸ For Sellers / Operators — Mattern is the operator-favorable bookend to skendzel-v-marshall-1973. Skendzel blocks forfeiture against a buyer with substantial equity; Mattern confirms that forfeiture is still available — and is the proper remedy — when the buyer abandons the property (stops paying, vacates, leaves the state). Protect yourself by defining abandonment in the contract and preserving proof of it (vacancy, out-of-state move, schooling elsewhere, unpaid utilities, missed payments). With abandonment and minimal payments, you can cancel and repossess instead of being forced into a foreclosure sale with a redemption period. See forfeiture-vs-foreclosure and the indiana page.

▸ For Buyers — If you walk away from the property, you generally lose the Skendzel equity protections. A defaulting buyer who stays and has built up substantial equity may force a foreclosure with a chance to redeem; an abandoning buyer can be forfeited and lose what was paid.

Jurisdictions that follow / cite: indiana (applies the Skendzel abandonment exception). Compare the national forfeiture-vs-foreclosure framework in forfeiture-vs-foreclosure and the lead case skendzel-v-marshall-1973.

---

Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Mattern is an unpublished memorandum decision turning on proof of abandonment and the equities of the specific facts; outcomes vary. Confirm the opinion is still good law and consult a licensed Indiana attorney before relying on it.