Arkansas

Arkansas — Contract for Deed / Installment Land Contract

Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited primary sources before acting. Statutes in this area are frequently amended. Last verified: 2026-06-08.

Arkansas has no comprehensive installment-land-contract consumer-protection statute — nothing like Texas Subchapter D or Minnesota’s cancellation statute. Instead, the deal-defining rule comes from case law, and it is unusually buyer-protective for a state with no CFD code: the Arkansas Supreme Court holds that “principles of equity abhor a forfeiture” of a buyer’s equitable interest once the buyer has paid substantial sums — even where the contract expressly provides for forfeiture — so the seller must foreclose the contract like a mortgage rather than declare a strict forfeiture. triplett-v-davis-1964; Humke v. Taylor, 282 Ark. 94, 666 S.W.2d 394 (1984); harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992. Harvison is the cleanest illustration: it was a legal-malpractice suit in which sellers sued their own lawyers for foreclosing instead of forfeiting after a buyer had paid ~60% over ~7 years — and the court held the lawyers were right, because forfeiture “was not an available remedy.” The net effect: in Arkansas, a substantially-paid contract for deed behaves like an equitable mortgage, not a forfeiture instrument. The one statutory pocket every operator must know is the Arkansas Farm Mediation Act, which forbids commencing a proceeding to terminate a contract for deed to purchase agricultural property (secured debt ≥ $20,000) without first serving a mediation-rights notice. Ark. Code §§ 2-7-302, 2-7-303.

0. Identity & Terminology

• In-state name(s): “contract for deed,” “installment land contract,” “land contract,” “agreement for deed,” and “real estate installment sale contract” — used interchangeably for a contract under which the seller retains legal title and delivers a deed only after the buyer completes the installment payments. The Farm Mediation Act uses the statutory phrase “contract for deed to purchase agricultural property.” Ark. Code § 2-7-302.
• Recognition: Common law for the core instrument (formation, equitable interest, forfeiture/foreclosure remedy), with scattered statutory touchpoints (statute of frauds, recording act, usury cap, farm-mediation notice). There is no dedicated CFD statute.
• Statutory home: None consolidated. Relevant primary law: statute of frauds Ark. Code § 4-59-101; recording act Ark. Code § 14-15-404; usury cap Ark. Const. amend. 89, § 3; farm-mediation notice Ark. Code §§ 2-7-302 – 2-7-303.
• Remedy regime: treat_as_mortgage. Arkansas case law treats a substantially-paid installment land contract as an equitable mortgage: forfeiture is barred once the buyer has substantial equity, and the seller must foreclose (judicial sale with an accounting). triplett-v-davis-1964; harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992 (forfeiture “was not an available remedy” after ~60% paid). See forfeiture-vs-foreclosure.

1. Formation & Mandatory Disclosures

• Statute of frauds: Writing required. No action shall be brought to charge any person upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or any interest in or concerning them, unless the agreement (or a memorandum) is in writing and signed by the party to be charged. Ark. Code § 4-59-101(a)(4), https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-4/subtitle-5/chapter-59/subchapter-1/section-4-59-101/.
• Mandatory disclosures: NONE specific to contracts for deed. Arkansas has no statute prescribing CFD-specific pre-sale disclosures (no mandated tax-delinquency notice, lien/encumbrance schedule, condition report, survey, or annual-accounting requirement of the Texas/Minnesota type). General Arkansas real-estate law applies: a licensed broker/agent owes statutory and common-law duties, and a residential seller may owe common-law disclosure of known latent defects, but there is no CFD disclosure statute and therefore no statutory “penalty for omission.” (Confirmed absent after review of the Arkansas Code; flagged in needs_verification for any consumer-protection overlay reached through the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code § 4-88-101 et seq.)
• Recording requirement: not mandated by deadline; recording protects priority. Arkansas imposes no statutory deadline to record a contract for deed. Recording is a priority/notice mechanism: a recorded instrument affecting title is constructive notice to all persons from the time it is filed, and an unrecorded conveyance “shall not be good or valid against a subsequent purchaser … for a valuable consideration without actual notice” or against a lien creditor. Ark. Code § 14-15-404(a)–(b), https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-14/subtitle-2/chapter-15/subchapter-4/section-14-15-404/. Either party may record; in practice the buyer records to protect the equitable interest. (See § 5 — recordability of the contract or a memorandum.)
• Annual accounting statement: NOT required by statute. Arkansas has no CFD-specific annual-accounting statute. (Confirmed absent; an accounting is available as an incident of a foreclosure/equity action — see § 3.)
• Prepayment: No statutory prohibition on, or regulation of, prepayment penalties for a CFD specifically; governed by the contract, subject to the usury cap. (No Arkansas CFD-specific prepayment statute located — flagged in needs_verification.)
• Usury / interest cap — applies to CFD seller financing. The Arkansas Constitution caps the maximum lawful rate of interest on a general loan or contract at 17% per annum for credit not otherwise excepted. Ark. Const. amend. 89, § 3; implemented at Ark. Code § 4-57-104. An installment land contract’s financed balance is “credit” subject to this cap. (Constitutional text confirmed via Ark. Const. amend. 89, § 3 and the Encyclopedia of Arkansas usury entry; direct rendering of the official constitutional page flagged in needs_verification.)

2. Buyer’s Equitable Interest

• Equitable title passes / equitable conversion recognized. On execution of an enforceable installment land contract the buyer (vendee) holds equitable title; the seller retains legal title as security for the unpaid price — the doctrine of equitable conversion. This equitable interest is precisely what the Arkansas anti-forfeiture cases protect: a buyer who has built substantial equity has an interest equity will not let the seller strip by forfeiture. triplett-v-davis-1964; harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992; see equitable-conversion. (A pinpoint Arkansas equitable-conversion / risk-of-loss opinion is flagged in needs_verification; the equitable-interest holding itself is squarely established by Triplett/Harvison.)
• Recordable / insurable: The buyer’s interest (the contract or a memorandum) is recordable under Ark. Code § 14-15-404 and gives constructive notice once filed. Title insurance is generally available on the seller’s underlying title; an owner’s policy for the buyer’s equitable interest is a matter of insurer practice.
• Risk of loss / improvements: Contract-governed in practice. Because the buyer holds equitable title and typically takes possession, the buyer ordinarily carries insurance and taxes and benefits from improvements; on a foreclosure the buyer’s payments and improvements are accounted for (the equity the cases protect). (Arkansas default risk-of-loss rule absent contract terms — flagged in needs_verification.)

3. Default & Remedies → see forfeiture-vs-foreclosure

• Primary remedy: foreclosure (the contract is treated as an equitable mortgage once the buyer has substantial equity).
• Forfeiture available? — only for buyers WITHOUT substantial equity; barred once substantial equity exists. A contractual forfeiture clause is not enforceable against a buyer who has acquired a substantial equitable interest: “principles of equity abhor a forfeiture … even when the contract expressly provides for the right of forfeiture.” triplett-v-davis-1964; Humke v. Taylor, 282 Ark. 94, 666 S.W.2d 394 (1984); harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992. In Harvison, ~60% paid over ~7 years placed the buyer past the line, and the court held forfeiture “was not an available remedy.”
  • Substantial-equity bar — exists. Threshold is equitable, fact-driven, not a fixed percentage: the question is whether the buyer has made “substantial payments” / acquired a substantial equitable interest. Harvison’s ~60%/7-years is an illustrative data point, not a statutory cliff. Leading cases: triplett-v-davis-1964, Humke v. Taylor (1984), harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992.
  • Waiver by accepting late payments. A seller’s acceptance of late or irregular payments cuts against a later forfeiture. In Harvison the sellers “always accepted [the buyers’] payments whether timely or untimely,” and that course of dealing was among the circumstances under which equity barred forfeiture of the buyers’ equitable interest. harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992. (Whether Arkansas additionally requires a vendor who has waived strict forfeiture to give the buyer reasonable notice before reinstating it — a rule recognized in many states — is flagged in needs_verification; no on-point Arkansas opinion was retrieved this run.)
• Statutory cancellation: NONE. Arkansas has no statutory cancellation/cure regime for contracts for deed (unlike Minnesota’s 60-day cancellation or Texas’s 30-day cure notice). Default and remedies are governed by the contract and equity. The only statutory pre-suit step is the Farm Mediation Act notice where the property is agricultural and the secured debt is ≥ $20,000: the creditor must serve a notice of the right to request mandatory mediation, and the farmer has 14 days to request it, before any proceeding to terminate the contract for deed may be commenced. Ark. Code §§ 2-7-302, 2-7-303, https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-2/subtitle-1/chapter-7/subchapter-3/section-2-7-303/.
• Judicial foreclosure required when: the buyer has substantial equity (the forfeiture bar applies), or the seller otherwise elects to clear the buyer’s equitable interest through a court sale. Arkansas’s general equity practice — a foreclosure decree, judicial sale, and accounting — applies; the seller’s retained title functions as a vendor’s lien enforced like a mortgage.
• Acceleration: A contractual acceleration clause is generally enforceable as written, subject to course-of-dealing waiver limits (a seller who has accepted late payments — see Harvison) and to the substantial-equity bar on the forfeiture consequence. (No Arkansas authority voiding CFD acceleration located — conditional pending verification.)
• Restitution / accounting on foreclosure: Because the remedy is foreclosure rather than forfeiture, the buyer’s accumulated equity is realized through the judicial sale and accounting (payments and improvements credited; surplus over the debt belongs to the buyer) — that is the whole point of barring forfeiture. harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992.
• Seller’s other remedies: suit on the debt / specific performance of the buyer’s payment obligation; foreclosure of the vendor’s lien; forfeiture only against a low-equity buyer after proper (un-waived, noticed) default.

▸ For Sellers / Operators — Arkansas has no CFD statute, but do not mistake that for a forfeiture-friendly state. The controlling rule is judge-made and strong: once your buyer builds substantial equity, your forfeiture clause is dead and you must FORECLOSE (harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992; triplett-v-davis-1964). Harvison is a cautionary tale — sellers sued their own lawyers for foreclosing instead of forfeiting and lost, because forfeiture was legally unavailable. Three compliance facts: (1) there is no fixed equity percentage — treat any meaningfully-paid contract as foreclose-only and budget for a judicial sale; (2) if you have accepted late payments, that course of dealing cuts against forfeiture (it was among the facts barring forfeiture in Harvison) — collect timely or foreclose, do not rely on a sudden forfeiture; (3) if the land is agricultural and the debt is ≥ $20,000, you must serve the Farm Mediation Act notice (Ark. Code §§ 2-7-302–303) and honor the 14-day mediation- request window before filing. There are no statutory disclosure or annual-accounting traps — but watch the 17% usury cap (Ark. Const. amend. 89) and general DTPA exposure.

▸ For Buyers — Your strongest protection is judge-made: equity will not let the seller forfeit your interest once you have paid a substantial share — the seller must foreclose, and you recover your equity through the sale (triplett-v-davis-1964; harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992). You hold equitable title (§ 2); record your contract or a memorandum (Ark. Code § 14-15-404) to protect priority. A seller who has routinely accepted late payments faces a strong equitable argument against any sudden forfeiture (harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992).

3b. Remedies — Advanced

• Election of remedies: A seller effectively elects between (a) forfeiture (only viable against a low-equity, non-waived default) and (b) foreclosure of the vendor’s-lien interest / suit on the debt. Once substantial equity exists, the election collapses into foreclosure. harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992.
• Deficiency after foreclosure: Arkansas foreclosure-deficiency principles apply to a judicial foreclosure of the seller’s vendor’s-lien interest. (CFD-specific deficiency authority flagged in needs_verification.)
• Anti-forfeiture equity relief — courts grant it. This is the core of Arkansas CFD law: courts relieve against forfeiture of a substantially-paid buyer’s equitable interest as a matter of equity. Standard = whether the buyer made “substantial payments” / holds a substantial equitable interest (fact-driven). Leading cases: triplett-v-davis-1964, Humke v. Taylor (1984), harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992.
• Ejectment vs. eviction path: A defaulting CFD buyer holds equitable title and is an owner, not a tenant; the seller cannot use a summary landlord-tenant eviction/unlawful-detainer to retake possession over a contested default — the dispute is resolved through equity/foreclosure. (Pinpoint Arkansas unlawful-detainer- exclusion authority flagged in needs_verification; follows from the equitable-title holdings.)
• Quiet title after default: Where forfeiture is permitted (low equity) or after a foreclosure sale, a quiet-title action in circuit (chancery/equity) court may be used to clear the buyer’s recorded equitable interest. (Court/timeline specifics flagged in needs_verification.)
• Forfeited payments / liquidated damages: A clause letting the seller keep all payments “as liquidated damages” (as in Harvison) is unenforceable as a penalty against a substantially-paid buyer; the buyer’s equity is protected through foreclosure and accounting rather than forfeited. harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992.
• Intervening seller-lien risk to buyer: Because the seller holds legal title, the seller’s creditors and judgment liens can attach to the legal title; the buyer’s recording (Ark. Code § 14-15-404) and equitable interest are the principal protections, since a recorded contract is constructive notice cutting off later purchasers/creditors without notice.

4. Federal Overlay (as applied in-state) → see dodd-frank-seller-financing, safe-act-mlo

• Dodd-Frank exposure: A residential Arkansas CFD is seller financing / “credit” under TILA and the CFPB Loan-Originator Rule. The federal ≤1-property (no balloon, no ATR) and ≤3-property (with ATR) seller-financer exclusions from the loan-originator definition apply in Arkansas as nationally. See dodd-frank-seller-financing for the 12 C.F.R. § 1026.36(a) thresholds. A high-volume Arkansas owner-financer (more transactions/12 months than the exclusion allows) loses the exclusion and must use a licensed loan originator and meet ATR.
• SAFE Act / MLO licensing: Residential-mortgage-loan-originator licensing in Arkansas is administered by the Arkansas Securities Department under the Arkansas Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Mortgage Licensing Act; seller-financers above the federal/state de-minimis thresholds may require an MLO license. See safe-act-mlo. (Exact Arkansas SAFE Act code section and the precise seller-financer exemption threshold flagged in needs_verification.)
• State consumer-protection overlay: No CFD-specific overlay. The general Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code § 4-88-101 et seq., is the residual consumer-protection backstop for misrepresentation in an owner-financed sale. (Application of the ADTPA to a CFD flagged in needs_verification.)
• CFPB enforcement notes: Arkansas was within the national 2016+ CFPB / state-AG scrutiny of predatory CFD programs; with no state CFD statute, the federal overlay and the judge-made anti-forfeiture rule are the principal constraints.

5. Title, Recording & Wraps → see garn-st-germain-due-on-sale

• Memorandum recording — permitted; no prescribed CFD form. A contract for deed (or a memorandum of it) is an “instrument of writing affecting the title … in law or equity” and may be recorded; once filed it is constructive notice and protects the buyer against later purchasers/creditors without notice. Ark. Code § 14-15-404, https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-14/subtitle-2/chapter-15/subchapter-4/section-14-15-404/. No statute prescribes a special CFD memorandum form or a recording deadline.
• Garn-St. Germain due-on-sale: A CFD or wrap is a “transfer” that can trigger an existing lender’s due-on-sale clause under 12 U.S.C. § 1701j-3. The Garn-St. Germain residential exemptions (e.g., transfer into an inter vivos trust where the borrower remains a beneficiary) generally do not cover a sale-on-terms to a third-party CFD buyer, so an Arkansas wrap carries acceleration risk. See garn-st-germain-due-on-sale.
• Underlying mortgage / wrap — permitted, not specially regulated; risk borne by the parties. Arkansas has no statute restricting wrap CFDs (contrast Texas § 5.085). A seller may sell on a CFD over an existing mortgage, but assumes due-on-sale acceleration risk and the practical risk that the underlying lender forecloses; sound practice (not statute) is to disclose the underlying lien and let the buyer cure. (No Arkansas wrap-disclosure statute located.)
• Deed delivery: Typically delivered at payoff (or held in escrow pending completion); the seller conveys recorded legal title by warranty deed when the buyer performs in full. No statutory mechanism is prescribed; the contract controls.
• Marketable title at payoff: The seller must deliver marketable title at completion; the buyer’s protection against intervening seller liens is recording (§ 14-15-404) plus the warranty covenants in the eventual deed.
• Title insurance: Available through Arkansas title insurers; coverage of the buyer’s equitable interest pending payoff is an insurer-practice matter.
• Seller death / bankruptcy effect: The buyer’s recorded equitable interest generally survives; the seller’s estate or bankruptcy trustee takes legal title subject to a recorded contract for deed.

6. Tax Treatment

• IRC § 453 installment reporting: An Arkansas CFD is an installment sale for federal income tax; the seller reports gain ratably as principal is received, subject to the dealer exception (§ 453(b)(2), (l)). See irc-453-installment-sale. Arkansas conforms its income tax to federal installment-sale treatment in the ordinary course. (Arkansas-specific conformity citation flagged in needs_verification.)
• Property tax responsibility: Contract-governed; in practice the buyer pays ad valorem property tax as the equitable owner in possession. (Arkansas authority on the equitable owner’s property-tax liability flagged in needs_verification.)
• Homestead exemption for equitable owner: Arkansas constitutional/statutory homestead protection generally extends to a person holding equitable title in possession; a CFD buyer in possession is a strong candidate for homestead treatment. (Pinpoint Arkansas homestead-for-equitable-owner authority flagged in needs_verification — left empty rather than guessed.)
• Transfer / documentary tax: Arkansas imposes a real property transfer tax (documentary stamp) on conveyances of realty for consideration. The tax is keyed to the conveyance by deed; a contract for deed that does not itself convey legal title generally defers the transfer-tax event to delivery of the deed at payoff. (Exact Ark. Code § 26-60-101 et seq. rate and the contract-vs-deed timing flagged in needs_verification — primary text not retrieved this run.)
• Mortgage registration tax: Arkansas imposes no mortgage-registration tax of the Minnesota type; only county recording fees apply. (Confirmed absent to author’s knowledge; flagged for verification.)

7. Bankruptcy & Death / Divorce

• Buyer bankruptcy: Characterization splits nationally between executory contract (11 U.S.C. § 365) and secured debt treatment. Because Arkansas treats a substantially-paid CFD as an equitable mortgage (the buyer holds equitable title; the seller holds a vendor’s-lien-type security interest), the secured-debt framing is the more natural fit for a substantially-paid Arkansas contract, allowing the buyer to cure/pay through a Chapter 13 plan rather than face § 365 rejection. See forfeiture-vs-foreclosure and the federal pages. (A pinpoint Arkansas/Eighth Circuit bankruptcy characterization of an Arkansas CFD is flagged in needs_verification.)
• Seller bankruptcy: The buyer’s recorded equitable interest generally survives; the trustee takes subject to the recorded contract.
• Assignability by buyer: Generally permitted subject to the contract’s terms; anti-assignment clauses are common. (Enforceability authority flagged in needs_verification.)
• Survivorship / divorce: The buyer’s equitable interest is real property of the buyer’s estate, descends and is devisable, and is divisible marital property in divorce like other realty interests. (Pinpoint authority flagged in needs_verification.)

8. Case Law (real, verified)

Case	Year	Topic	Holding (plain English)	Source
triplett-v-davis-1964	1964	forfeiture / substantial equity	Equity abhors forfeiture of a land-contract buyer’s equitable interest once substantial payments are made — even with an express forfeiture clause.	238 Ark. 870, 385 S.W.2d 33
harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992	1992	forfeiture vs. foreclosure	After ~60% paid over ~7 years, forfeiture “was not an available remedy”; the seller’s lawyers were right to foreclose the contract for deed.	https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/1992/91-286-0.html

• Triplett v. Davis, 238 Ark. 870, 385 S.W.2d 33 (1964). Arkansas Supreme Court. Good law; foundational Arkansas anti-forfeiture authority for installment land contracts.
• Humke v. Taylor, 282 Ark. 94, 666 S.W.2d 394 (1984). Arkansas Supreme Court. Good law; applies the Triplett equity-abhors-forfeiture rule. (Reporter citation cross-confirmed via case indexes; full opinion not directly rendered this run.)
• Harvison v. Charles E. Davis & Associates, Inc., 310 Ark. 104, 835 S.W.2d 284 (1992). Arkansas Supreme Court. Good law; the cleanest modern statement that forfeiture is unavailable against a substantially-paid CFD buyer and the seller must foreclose. The opinion expressly relies on Triplett and Humke and notes the sellers “always accepted [the buyers’] payments whether timely or untimely” — the verified anchor for the course-of-dealing-waiver point.

9. Edge Cases (state-specific notes)

• garn-st-germain-due-on-sale — An Arkansas wrap/CFD over an existing mortgage risks due-on-sale acceleration; Arkansas has no statute restricting wraps (contrast Texas), so the risk is allocated by contract and federal law.
• No CFD statute — Arkansas’s remedy regime is entirely judge-made; the controlling authority is the Triplett/Humke/Harvison anti-forfeiture line, not a code section. This is the single most important orientation fact for the state.
• Agricultural property — the Farm Mediation Act (Ark. Code §§ 2-7-302–303) adds a pre-suit mediation-notice step (14-day request window) before terminating a contract for deed to purchase agricultural property securing ≥ $20,000 — a real, statute-based procedural gate unique to farm CFDs.
• Waiver by accepting late payments — a seller who tolerates irregular payments builds the buyer’s equitable case against forfeiture; in Harvison the sellers’ acceptance of payments “whether timely or untimely” was among the facts barring forfeiture (harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992).
• Manufactured / mobile homes, SCRA — standard overlays apply; no Arkansas CFD-specific manufactured-home rule located.

10. Operations

• Where records live: County Circuit Clerk / ex officio Recorder real-property records in each of Arkansas’s 75 counties (Ark. Code § 14-15-404). Recording the contract or a memorandum protects the buyer’s priority.
• Public access: County recorder portals; Encyclopedia of Arkansas (usury history); the Arkansas General Assembly site (arkleg.state.ar.us) for the Code and Constitution; Justia/CourtListener for opinions.
• Who may draft (UPL notes): Arkansas restricts the unauthorized practice of law; drafting a tailored contract for deed is law practice. Real-estate licensees may generally complete standardized/blank forms incident to a transaction but should not draft custom conveyancing terms — attorney or title-company preparation is the norm for non-standard CFDs.
• Costs / timelines: County recording fees; the controlling deadlines are contractual (no statutory cure clock), plus the 14-day farm-mediation request window for agricultural CFDs. A judicial foreclosure of a substantially-paid CFD runs on ordinary Arkansas equity-foreclosure timelines.
• Key agencies: County Circuit Clerks/Recorders; Arkansas Securities Department (SAFE Act / MLO licensing); Arkansas Agriculture Department (farm mediation); Arkansas Attorney General (Deceptive Trade Practices Act).

11. Meta

• sources:
  • {type: statute, url: “https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-4/subtitle-5/chapter-59/subchapter-1/section-4-59-101/”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: statute, url: “https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-14/subtitle-2/chapter-15/subchapter-4/section-14-15-404/”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: statute, url: “https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/title-2/subtitle-1/chapter-7/subchapter-3/section-2-7-303/”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: statute, url: “https://codes.findlaw.com/ar/arkansas-constitution-of-1874/ar-const-amend-89-sect-3/”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: case, url: “https://law.justia.com/cases/arkansas/supreme-court/1992/91-286-0.html”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: case, url: “https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1674397/harvison-v-charles-e-davis-assoc/”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: secondary, url: “https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/usury-13876/”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: secondary, url: “https://contractfordeed.uslegal.com/state-laws/arkansas-contract-for-deed-law/”, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
• needs_verification:
  • Direct rendering of the full opinion text of Triplett v. Davis (238 Ark. 870, 385 S.W.2d 33), Humke v. Taylor (282 Ark. 94, 666 S.W.2d 394), and Harvison (310 Ark. 104, 835 S.W.2d 284). This run confirmed citations and holding language through Justia/CourtListener case indexes and search extracts; the legal hosts blocked direct full-text fetch.
  • Vendor’s duty to give reasonable notice before reinstating a waived forfeiture. This run could NOT verify an Arkansas case for that rule. A prior draft cited “Ashworth v. Hankins (Ark. 1970),” but the only retrievable Ashworth v. Hankins (241 Ark. 629, 408 S.W.2d 871 (1966)) is a lis pendens decision, not a land-contract waiver case; and Sligh v. Plair, 263 Ark. 936, 569 S.W.2d 58 (1978), is a fee-tail / condition-subsequent reverter case, not a CFD course-of-dealing waiver case. Both were removed rather than left as misattributed support. The course-of-dealing-waiver point now rests only on the verified Harvison facts (acceptance of payments “whether timely or untimely”); the separate reasonable-notice-to-reinstate rule remains an honest open gap pending an on-point Arkansas opinion.
  • Whether the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Ark. Code § 4-88-101 et seq.) has been applied to provide any CFD disclosure-type remedy (no CFD disclosure statute exists; this is the only residual overlay).
  • Arkansas SAFE Act code section and the precise seller-financer exemption threshold for MLO licensing.
  • Arkansas real property transfer tax (Ark. Code § 26-60-101 et seq.) rate and whether the taxable event is the contract for deed or the deed at payoff.
  • Arkansas default risk-of-loss rule for an executory land contract; pinpoint equitable-conversion opinion.
  • Homestead exemption authority confirming an equitable (CFD) owner in possession qualifies (field left empty, not guessed).
  • Arkansas/Eighth Circuit bankruptcy characterization of a CFD (executory contract § 365 vs. secured debt).
  • Arkansas property-tax liability of the equitable owner; income-tax conformity to IRC § 453.
  • CFD-specific prepayment and deficiency authority.
• open_questions:
  • Is there a percentage-of-equity “rule of thumb” Arkansas courts use below which forfeiture remains available, or is it purely a totality-of-circumstances “substantial payments” test? (Harvison’s ~60% is illustrative, not a holding-level threshold.)
  • Does the Farm Mediation Act notice requirement apply to a forfeiture (as opposed to a judicial foreclosure) of an agricultural CFD, given the statute speaks of “terminat[ing] a contract for deed”?
• cross_links: forfeiture-vs-foreclosure, equitable-conversion, dodd-frank-seller-financing, safe-act-mlo, garn-st-germain-due-on-sale, irc-453-installment-sale, triplett-v-davis-1964, harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992, skendzel-v-marshall-1973, sebastian-v-floyd-1979
• changelog:
  • 2026-06-08 — Initial authoring. Classified remedy regime treat_as_mortgage on the Triplett/Humke/Harvison anti-forfeiture line (equity abhors forfeiture of a substantially-paid buyer’s interest; seller must foreclose). Populated statute of frauds (§ 4-59-101), recording act (§ 14-15-404), usury cap (Ark. Const. amend. 89 § 3), and the Farm Mediation Act pre-suit notice (§§ 2-7-302–303). Confirmed the ABSENCE of a CFD-specific disclosure/annual-accounting/statutory-cancellation regime. Created case pages for Harvison (1992) and Triplett (1964).
  • 2026-06-08 — Adversarial citation-verification pass. Independently confirmed §§ 4-59-101, 14-15-404, 2-7-302/303 (CFD-agricultural, $20k, 14-day window), Ark. Const. amend. 89 § 3 / § 4-57-104 (17% cap), and the Triplett/Humke/Harvison anti-forfeiture line (Harvison’s full holding + ~60%/~7-yr facts + its express reliance on Triplett and Humke verified via Justia/CourtListener). Excised the “Ashworth v. Hankins (Ark. 1970)” waiver/reasonable-notice citation — the only retrievable Ashworth v. Hankins (241 Ark. 629, 408 S.W.2d 871 (1966)) is a lis pendens case, not a land-contract waiver case — and removed Sligh v. Plair (263 Ark. 936, a fee-tail reverter case) as CFD waiver support. Re-anchored the course-of-dealing-waiver point on the verified Harvison facts; left the separate reasonable-notice-to-reinstate rule as an honest needs_verification gap. gap_score 17 → 10 (remaining points all from honest needs_verification flags).

---

Disclaimer. This page is legal information, not legal advice, and may be out of date. Contract-for-deed statutes are frequently amended and remedies turn on facts. Consult a licensed attorney in this jurisdiction before drafting, enforcing, or signing an installment land contract.