Triplett v. Davis, 238 Ark. 870, 385 S.W.2d 33 (Ark. 1964)
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.
- Citation: 238 Ark. 870, 385 S.W.2d 33 (1964).
- Court / Year: Arkansas Supreme Court, 1964.
- Topic tags: forfeiture | equitable_interest | substantial_equity | foreclosure
- Facts: A purchaser under an installment land contract (contract for deed) had made substantial payments and acquired an equitable interest in the property before defaulting; the seller sought to enforce the contract’s forfeiture provision and retain both the land and the payments.
- Holding: Where a buyer has made substantial payments and acquired an equitable interest in the property, principles of equity abhor a forfeiture of that interest — even when the contract expressly provides for the right of forfeiture. The seller is not entitled to a strict forfeiture against a substantially-paid buyer.
- Reasoning: A defaulting land-contract buyer who has built equity stands in a position analogous to a mortgagor with an equity of redemption; equity relieves against the penalty of forfeiting that accumulated value. The proper course is to treat the seller’s interest like a security interest and require foreclosure / accounting rather than allow the seller to keep the land and the payments.
- Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Triplett is the foundational Arkansas anti-forfeiture authority for installment land contracts. It is the case later Arkansas decisions — harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992 and Humke v. Taylor, 282 Ark. 94, 666 S.W.2d 394 (1984) — rely on to hold that forfeiture is unavailable against a buyer with substantial equity and that the seller must foreclose.
- Good-law status: Good law; the lead Arkansas precedent on relief from installment-contract forfeiture.
- Source (retrieved): Reporter citation and holding confirmed via the Arkansas Supreme Court opinion in harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992 (310 Ark. 104, 835 S.W.2d 284) and Justia/CourtListener case indexes, e.g. https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/1992/91-286-0.html · Verified: 2026-06-08 (citation cross-confirmed; the 1964 opinion text itself was not directly rendered this run — see needs_verification on the Arkansas page).
Jurisdictions that follow / cite: arkansas
Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Confirm the opinion is still good law before relying on it.