Contract4Deed Wiki

Slone v. Calhoun (2012)

3 min read

Slone v. Calhoun, 386 S.W.3d 745 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012)

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

  • Citation: Slone v. Calhoun, 386 S.W.3d 745 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012)
  • Court / Year: Court of Appeals of Kentucky, rendered Nov. 30, 2012
  • Topic tags: forfeiture · foreclosure · remedies · equitable_interest
  • Remedy-regime anchor: treat_as_mortgage — the modern reaffirmation that sebastian-v-floyd-1979 remains controlling in Kentucky.

▸ For Sellers / Operators

Slone removes any doubt that Sebastian is still the law more than three decades later. The court held the dispute before it “is controlled exclusively by Sebastian v. Floyd … and its progeny,” that the installment contract’s forfeiture provisions “are invalid as a matter of law and are otherwise not enforceable,” and that “the only judicial remedy to resolve the alleged breach of the land contract between the parties is a judicial sale of the property.” For a Kentucky operator, the practical message is unchanged from Sebastian: a forfeiture/termination clause in an installment land contract cannot be enforced, and the seller’s exclusive default remedy is a foreclosure-style judicial sale under which the buyer’s accumulated equity and any surplus are protected.

▸ For Buyers. A defaulting installment-contract buyer in Kentucky is treated like a defaulting mortgagor: the buyer holds equitable title, the seller’s retained title is merely a security lien, and the buyer’s equity can be cut off only by a court-ordered judicial sale — never by self-help forfeiture.

Case detail (neutral, cited)

  • Facts: The parties’ transaction was structured as an installment land contract with a forfeiture/termination clause permitting the seller side to cancel and retain payments on the buyer’s default. The trial court enforced the forfeiture-style result; the Court of Appeals reversed, applying Sebastian. 1

  • Holding: Installment land contracts in Kentucky are “controlled exclusively by Sebastian v. Floyd, 585 S.W.2d 381 (Ky. 1979) and its progeny.” A forfeiture provision in such a contract is “invalid as a matter of law and … otherwise not enforceable,” and “the only judicial remedy to resolve the alleged breach of the land contract between the parties is a judicial sale of the property.” 1

  • Reasoning: The court applied Sebastian’s rule that a land-sale contract is the practical equivalent of a purchase-money mortgage — the seller holds bare legal title only as security, equitable title is in the buyer, and the buyer’s equity (like a mortgagor’s equity of redemption) may be extinguished only through a judicial sale, not through contract forfeiture. 1

  • Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Slone is the leading modern authority confirming that Kentucky is a treat_as_mortgage jurisdiction and that Sebastian is undisturbed. Operators must underwrite Kentucky installment land contracts for a foreclosure-style exit (judicial sale), not a forfeiture.

  • Good-law status: Good law as of last verification; itself a reaffirmation of Sebastian v. Floyd.

  • Source (retrieved): Google Scholar full opinion, scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3139035843090478819 · Verified: 2026-06-08

Jurisdictions that follow / cite: kentucky

Related: sebastian-v-floyd-1979 · skendzel-v-marshall-1973 · forfeiture-vs-foreclosure

Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.

Footnotes

  1. Slone v. Calhoun, 386 S.W.3d 745 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012) — full opinion text retrieved 2026-06-08: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3139035843090478819 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, Nov. 30, 2012). ↩ ↩2 ↩3

Graph View

Backlinks