Contract4Deed Wiki

District of Columbia

23 min read

District of Columbia — 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.

The District of Columbia has no contract-for-deed-specific statute and no statutory forfeiture-or-cancellation regime. The instrument is governed by D.C.’s general real-property and contract common law: the buyer (vendee) becomes the equitable owner under the doctrine of equitable conversion (lenman-v-jones-1911, 222 U.S. 51 (1911)), legal title stays with the seller as security, and a defaulted contract is unwound through ordinary contract and ejectment remedies in the Superior Court, not a self-executing statutory forfeiture. Critically, D.C.’s ejectment statute bars a vendor from recovering land from a vendee who has performed enough to be entitled to a conveyance (D.C. Code § 16-1106) and channels improvement/equity disputes through a court-supervised tender-and-valuation procedure (§§ 16-1116 to 16-1123). Because no statute classifies the remedy and the D.C. Court of Appeals has not squarely decided whether an equity-rich installment buyer is protected from strict forfeiture, the remedy regime is best classified unclear — leaning away from strict forfeiture given the equity-of-redemption tradition and § 16-1106, but not resolved by controlling D.C. authority. The CFD-specific questions that statutes answer elsewhere (cure periods, mandatory disclosures, annual accountings) are flagged under needs_verification rather than guessed.

0. Identity & Terminology

  • In-state name(s): No statutory term of art. In D.C. practice the instrument is called a “contract for deed,” “installment land contract,” “land contract,” or generically a “contract of sale” / “contract for the sale of land.” The buyer is the vendee/purchaser; the seller is the vendor. D.C. real-property law speaks of “real property” as “every estate or right, legal or equitable … in lands” (D.C. Code § 42-1101(4)), which by its terms reaches the vendee’s equitable interest. — D.C. Code § 42-1101, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/42-1101
  • Recognition: Common law. There is no D.C. Code chapter dedicated to contracts for deed / installment land contracts (the instrument is not listed in the NCLC/Pew national survey of state land-contract statutes, which confirms D.C. has none). The buyer’s equitable ownership rests on the common-law doctrine of equitable conversion, confirmed for D.C. land in lenman-v-jones-1911. — see equitable-conversion.
  • Statutory home: None specific. The governing primary law is general: conveyancing/recording (D.C. Code Title 42, ch. 4 — § 42-401), ejectment and recovery of land sold under contract (D.C. Code Title 16, ch. 11, subch. I — §§ 16-1106, 16-1116–16-1123), the statute of frauds (D.C. Code § 28-3502), usury (D.C. Code Title 28, ch. 33 — §§ 28-3301 to 28-3302), recordation/transfer taxes (D.C. Code § 42-1103; § 47-903), and the residential rental/sale overlay TOPA (D.C. Code § 42-3404.02). — https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/16/chapters/11/subchapters/I
  • Remedy regime: unclear. D.C. has no statutory forfeiture or cancellation procedure for installment land contracts and no D.C. Court of Appeals decision squarely resolving whether a forfeiture clause is enforceable against an installment buyer with substantial equity. The governing law is general equity and the § 16-1106 ejectment bar (a vendor “may not recover the property from the vendee” who has performed enough to be entitled to a conveyance), which points away from automatic strict forfeiture but does not install a Skendzel-style sale-in-lieu-of-forfeiture rule. Classified unclear pending a controlling D.C. installment-contract forfeiture holding (see needs_verification). — D.C. Code § 16-1106, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/16-1106; see forfeiture-vs-foreclosure, skendzel-v-marshall-1973.

1. Formation & Mandatory Disclosures

  • Statute of frauds: Writing required. A contract for the sale of land, or any interest in or concerning land, must be in a signed writing to be enforceable. — D.C. Code § 28-3502 (statute of frauds — contracts concerning real property), https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/28-3502
  • Mandatory disclosures: No contract-for-deed-specific disclosure statute. D.C. has not enacted a CFD disclosure schedule of the Texas (§§ 5.069–5.070) or Minnesota (ch. 559A) type. The generally applicable consumer overlays are (a) the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), D.C. Code § 28-3904, which prohibits unfair/deceptive trade practices including failing to state a material fact that tends to mislead, and (b) common-law fraud/misrepresentation. There is a D.C. residential real property seller disclosure regime under D.C. Code § 42-1301 et seq. whose application to an installment-sale vendor is not pinned to a retrieved primary citation here — see needs_verification. — D.C. Code § 28-3904, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/28-3904
    • Penalty for omission: No CFD-specific statutory penalty. A material misrepresentation or deceptive omission can support CPPA remedies (actual or statutory damages, treble damages, attorney’s fees, injunctive relief under D.C. Code § 28-3905) and common-law rescission/fraud claims. — D.C. Code § 28-3905, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/28-3905
  • Recording requirement: No CFD-specific deadline. D.C. is a notice-type recording jurisdiction: a deed or instrument conveying or affecting real property takes effect between the parties on delivery, but as to creditors and subsequent bona fide purchasers/mortgagees without notice it takes effect only from delivery to the Recorder of Deeds for record (D.C. Code § 42-401). There is no statutory command (or deadline) requiring a seller to record a contract for deed; in practice the buyer records the contract or a memorandum to protect priority and give notice. — D.C. Code § 42-401, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/42-401
  • Annual accounting statement: No statutory annual-accounting mandate for installment land contracts (no CFD statute exists). Any accounting duty is contractual. — see needs_verification.
  • Prepayment: No CFD-specific prepayment statute located. Prepayment terms are contractual; D.C. does not bar prepayment of a seller-carried installment obligation by general statute. — see needs_verification.
  • Usury / interest cap: The general D.C. usury law caps the written-contract rate at 24% per annum (D.C. Code § 28-3301(a)), and in the absence of an express written rate the rate is 6% per annum (D.C. Code § 28-3302(a)). Exceeding the permitted rate triggers usury consequences (forfeiture of interest and related remedies, D.C. Code § 28-3303 et seq.). Whether a particular seller-carry contract for deed is a “loan or forbearance” subject to the cap, or a credit sale, is fact-specific. — D.C. Code § 28-3301, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/28-3301; § 28-3302, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/28-3302

2. Buyer’s Equitable Interest

  • Equitable title passes / equitable conversion recognized: Yes. Under a specifically enforceable contract to buy D.C. land, the vendee “become[s] the equitable owner by [the] contract,” with the right “to insist … that the legal owner should give up the legal estate upon fulfilment of the conditions agreed” (lenman-v-jones-1911, 222 U.S. 51, 56 (1911)). The vendor retains legal title as security. — https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/222/51; see equitable-conversion.
  • Buyer’s interest recordable: Yes. The contract or a memorandum may be recorded with the Recorder of Deeds, and recording perfects the buyer’s priority against later creditors and bona fide purchasers under the notice statute (D.C. Code § 42-401). — https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/42-401
  • Buyer’s interest insurable: Generally yes — vendee’s-interest and owner’s title coverage on the equitable interest are obtainable from D.C. title insurers (industry practice; not a statutory point).
  • Risk of loss: Contract-governed. Under equitable conversion the equitable owner (vendee in possession) ordinarily bears risk of loss absent a contrary clause; D.C. has not adopted the Uniform Vendor and Purchaser Risk Act by a cite retrieved here, so allocate risk expressly by contract. — see needs_verification.
  • Improvements and waste: The vendee in possession holds the equitable fee and may improve. If the vendor sues to recover the land, D.C.’s ejectment statute protects a good-faith improving occupant: the value of permanent improvements is found by the jury and the vendor must either pay it or submit to a tender-and-purchase procedure (D.C. Code §§ 16-1116, 16-1120, 16-1122, 16-1123) — a statutory check on uncompensated forfeiture of improvement value. — D.C. Code § 16-1116, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/16-1116

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

  • Primary remedy: No statutory remedy track. Because D.C. has no CFD cancellation/forfeiture statute, a defaulted contract for deed is enforced through general contract and real-property remedies in the Superior Court of D.C.: (a) an action for the price / specific performance (the parcel being unique), (b) damages for breach, (c) rescission and recovery of possession consistent with the contract’s forfeiture clause, or (d) ejectment to recover possession (D.C. Code Title 16, ch. 11). The contract’s own default clause, read against D.C. equity doctrine, governs. — https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/16/chapters/11/subchapters/I
  • Forfeiture available? By contract, subject to equity — and subject to the § 16-1106 ejectment bar. A forfeiture/termination clause in the contract is the seller’s textual remedy, but two general-law limits apply: (1) D.C. Code § 16-1106 provides that where land has been sold under a written contract and “there has been such a performance of its terms by the vendee as would entitle him to a decree for a conveyance of the legal title, without condition, the vendor may not recover the property from the vendee” — i.e., a sufficiently-performed vendee cannot be ejected/forfeited out; and (2) courts of equity retain the traditional power to relieve against forfeiture of a land-sale contract where the result would be unconscionable. D.C. has no statutory substantial-equity sale (no Skendzel-codified rule). — D.C. Code § 16-1106, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/16-1106
    • Substantial-equity bar: Not resolved by controlling D.C. authority. No D.C. statute imposes a Skendzel-style bar, and no retrieved D.C. Court of Appeals decision squarely holds that a forfeiture clause is unenforceable against an installment buyer with substantial equity. The available levers are general: § 16-1106’s performance bar and equity’s anti-forfeiture power. Leading case to reconcile against: skendzel-v-marshall-1973. — see needs_verification.
  • Statutory cancellation: None exists. D.C. has no notice-and-cure statutory cancellation procedure for installment land contracts (contrast Minnesota ch. 559.21 or Washington RCW ch. 61.30). Any cure right is contractual or equitable. There is therefore no statutory cure-period day count to state. — confirmed absent; see needs_verification for any contractually-typical practice.
  • Judicial foreclosure required when: Not required by statute for a contract for deed (the deed-of-trust foreclosure statute, D.C. Code § 42-815, governs deeds of trust/mortgages, not installment land contracts). A seller may elect to have the contract treated as a security device and seek a judicial foreclosure-style accounting/sale in equity, but D.C. does not mandate foreclosure for CFDs the way sebastian-v-floyd-1979 mandates it in Kentucky. — D.C. Code § 42-815, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/42-815
  • Acceleration enforceable? Conditional / contract-governed. No CFD-specific acceleration statute; an acceleration clause is enforceable per its terms subject to general equity (including relief from forfeiture). — see needs_verification.
  • Restitution offset on forfeiture? Not statutorily required, but equity may compel it. D.C. has no statute requiring the seller to refund payments on forfeiture. The buyer’s protections are general: equity’s power to relieve against forfeiture, the § 16-1106 performance bar, and the §§ 16-1116–16-1123 improvement valuation/tender procedure if the seller sues to recover possession. — D.C. Code §§ 16-1116, 16-1122, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/16-1122
  • Seller’s other remedies: specific performance / action for the price, damages for breach, rescission, ejectment (D.C. Code Title 16, ch. 11), and quiet title. The contract’s forfeiture clause supplies the contractual remedy, policed by equity.

▸ For Sellers / Operators — D.C. is a no-statute jurisdiction: there is no contract-for-deed cancellation statute giving you a clean, fast, codified forfeiture with a fixed cure period. Your remedy on default lives in your contract’s default clause plus general D.C. contract/ejectment law — and it is policed by two equity limits you must plan around. First, D.C. Code § 16-1106 bars you from recovering the land from a vendee who has performed enough to earn a conveyance, so you cannot simply forfeit out a buyer who has substantially paid down. Second, if you sue to recover possession, §§ 16-1116–16-1123 force a court-supervised valuation of the buyer’s good-faith improvements that you may have to pay for. Because the remedy regime is unclear and no D.C. appellate case resolves strict forfeiture against an equity-rich installment buyer, treat forfeiture of a paid-down deal as litigation-exposed, document defaults carefully, give a contractual notice-and-cure, and confirm federal threshold exposure (§ 4), recordation/transfer tax (§ 6), and any TOPA offer-of-sale duty for occupied residential property (§ 4/§ 9) before you contract.

▸ For Buyers — Your equitable ownership is real (lenman-v-jones-1911), recording the contract protects your priority (§ 42-401), and if you have performed enough you cannot be ejected (§ 16-1106). On a forfeiture attempt you can ask a D.C. court to relieve against forfeiture in equity and to value your improvements (§§ 16-1116–16-1123). Specific performance is your normal remedy for a seller who refuses to convey at payoff.

3b. Remedies — Advanced

  • Election of remedies: General D.C. contract-law election principles apply (a party may not both rescind/forfeit and enforce the contract for the same breach); no CFD-specific statutory rule. — see needs_verification.
  • Deficiency after forfeiture/foreclosure: No CFD-specific statute. If a seller forfeits and keeps payments, a separate deficiency action would be inconsistent with the rescission; if the seller instead sues for the price/damages, ordinary contract-damages and mitigation rules apply. — see needs_verification.
  • Anti-forfeiture / equitable relief from forfeiture: Available in principle. D.C. courts sit in equity and retain the traditional power to relieve a defaulting land-contract purchaser from an unconscionable forfeiture; § 16-1106 supplies a statutory performance bar on recovery of the land. The precise D.C. standard (e.g., what equity margin or degree of performance triggers relief) is not pinned to a retrieved D.C. installment-contract opinion here. — D.C. Code § 16-1106; see needs_verification.
  • Ejectment vs. eviction path: A defaulting installment buyer is an equitable owner, not a tenant (lenman-v-jones-1911), so the seller’s possession remedy is ejectment (D.C. Code Title 16, ch. 11), not landlord-tenant eviction — unless the contract has been validly terminated and the occupant reduced to a holdover. Mischaracterizing an equitable owner as a tenant to use the summary eviction process is a known CFD litigation flashpoint nationally. — D.C. Code § 16-1106, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/16-1106
  • Quiet title after cancellation: With no recorded statutory “declaration of forfeiture” mechanism, a seller who has terminated a recorded contract typically clears title by a quiet-title action in Superior Court (or a recorded release from the buyer). — see needs_verification.
  • Forfeited payments treatment: Whether retained installments are enforceable liquidated damages or an unenforceable penalty is governed by general D.C. contract law (reasonableness/penalty doctrine), not a CFD statute. — see needs_verification.
  • Intervening seller-lien risk to buyer: The vendor holds record legal title during the contract, so a judgment or lien against the vendor can attach to the vendor’s interest; the buyer’s chief defense is recording the contract or a memorandum to establish notice/priority under § 42-401. — D.C. Code § 42-401.

4. Federal Overlay (as applied in-state) → see dodd-frank-seller-financing, safe-act-mlo, garn-st-germain-due-on-sale

  • Dodd-Frank exposure: The federal seller-financing framework applies in D.C. with no special District carve-out. A natural-person seller financing one dwelling in 12 months may use the ≤1-property exclusion (no balloon limit, no ATR test); the ≤3-property exclusion (persons/entities, ATR required, no negative amortization) is the next tier — per the “mortgage originator” definition and seller-financer exclusion at 15 U.S.C. § 1602(dd)(2) and 12 C.F.R. § 1026.36(a) / § 1026.43. — see dodd-frank-seller-financing.
  • SAFE Act MLO licensing: Sellers exceeding the federal seller-financer thresholds may trigger mortgage loan originator licensing. D.C. administers SAFE-Act MLO licensing through the Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking (DISB) under the Mortgage Lender and Broker Act / D.C. SAFE Act; the exact D.C. Code SAFE-Act chapter cite is not pinned to a retrieved primary source here. — DISB, https://disb.dc.gov/; see safe-act-mlo and needs_verification.
  • State consumer-protection overlay / CFPB enforcement notes: D.C. has no CFD-specific predatory-sales statute. The generally applicable overlays are the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (D.C. Code §§ 28-3904, 28-3905) for unfair/deceptive practices and the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), D.C. Code § 42-3404.02, which requires an owner of a housing accommodation to give the tenant an opportunity to purchase before a sale (single-family accommodations were largely exempted in 2018, subject to notice and a narrow elderly/disabled carve-out). The CFPB’s August 2024 Report on Contract for Deed Lending documents the national predatory-CFD backdrop. — D.C. Code § 42-3404.02, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/42-3404.02; CFPB report, https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_contract-for-deed_report_2024-08.pdf

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

  • Memorandum recording: Permitted. The contract or a memorandum may be recorded with the Recorder of Deeds; recording establishes notice/priority against later creditors and bona fide purchasers under the notice statute (§ 42-401). No prescribed CFD memorandum form. — D.C. Code § 42-401, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/42-401
  • Garn-St. Germain due-on-sale: A contract for deed transferring possession is a transfer that can trigger a due-on-sale clause in an underlying loan; Garn-St. Germain, 12 U.S.C. § 1701j-3, makes due-on-sale clauses generally enforceable and preempts contrary state limits, subject to the enumerated residential exemptions (which generally do not shelter an installment land sale where the borrower parts with occupancy). — see garn-st-germain-due-on-sale.
  • Underlying-mortgage / wrap: Permitted in D.C. (no statute bars a wrap-around contract for deed), but it carries the standard risk: the senior lender may call or foreclose the underlying loan on a due-on-sale trigger even if the buyer pays the seller on time, and a senior nonjudicial power-of-sale foreclosure (D.C. Code § 42-815) can extinguish the buyer’s junior equitable interest. No D.C. statute conditions a wrap on lender consent, so disclosure and payment-escrow are contractual best practice. — D.C. Code § 42-815, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/42-815; see garn-st-germain-due-on-sale.
  • Deed delivery: The seller retains legal title and conveys by deed at payoff (commonly via escrow of an executed deed or a fulfillment/warranty deed). D.C. § 42-401 fixes effectiveness as of delivery (between the parties) and recording (as to third parties). — D.C. Code § 42-401.
  • Marketable title at payoff: The seller must convey marketable title at payoff; the recorded contract plus the fulfillment deed clears the chain.
  • Title insurance: Available to buyers (vendee’s-interest coverage during the term and owner’s policies at payoff) from D.C. title insurers.
  • Seller death / bankruptcy effect: The vendor’s interest (legal title + payment stream) passes to the estate or bankruptcy estate subject to the buyer’s recorded equitable interest and right to the deed at payoff; specific performance remains available to the buyer (lenman-v-jones-1911).

6. Tax Treatment

  • IRC § 453 installment reporting: A contract for deed is an installment sale; a non-dealer seller may report gain under 26 U.S.C. § 453 as principal is collected (dealer-property and other exceptions apply). — 26 U.S.C. § 453, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/453; see irc-453-installment-sale.
  • Property-tax responsibility: Contract-governed. In practice the vendee in possession (equitable owner) pays the D.C. real-property tax; the equitable owner is the party who would claim owner-based relief. — see needs_verification for the homestead point below.
  • Homestead exemption for equitable owner: D.C.’s Homestead Deduction for owner-occupants requires that the property be the owner’s principal residence; whether an installment-contract equitable owner qualifies (and the exact D.C. Code § 47-850 eligibility text) is not pinned to a retrieved primary source here. — see needs_verification.
  • Transfer / recordation tax: D.C. imposes two real-property taxes that bear on a contract for deed: a recordation tax on deeds/instruments (D.C. Code § 42-1103) and a transfer tax on deeds (D.C. Code § 47-903), each at 1.1% of consideration for residential value under 400,000 or more (plus a 0.35% additional recordation tax on most deeds since Oct. 1, 2006, and a higher Class 2 surtax on $2M+ transfers). Because a contract for deed is typically not itself a recordable deed of conveyance, the transfer tax is generally triggered at the deed delivery/payoff stage; recordation tax may apply if the instrument secures or conveys an interest — confirm timing with the Office of Tax and Revenue. — D.C. Code § 42-1103, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/42-1103; § 47-903, https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/47-903; see needs_verification (exact tax point for the contract vs. the fulfillment deed).
  • Mortgage registration tax: D.C. has no separate mortgage registration tax; the recordation tax (above) applies to security instruments at 1.1%/1.45%. — D.C. Code § 42-1103.

7. Bankruptcy & Death / Divorce

  • Buyer bankruptcy: Whether a D.C. contract for deed is an executory contract (11 U.S.C. § 365) or a secured debt / lien in the buyer’s bankruptcy is subject to the national split; D.C.’s equitable-conversion view (vendee holds equitable title, vendor holds legal title as security — lenman-v-jones-1911) supports secured-debt-style treatment, but the federal characterization is court- and fact-specific and no controlling D.C.-specific bankruptcy holding was retrieved. — 11 U.S.C. § 365, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/365; see needs_verification.
  • Seller bankruptcy: The vendor’s interest enters the estate subject to the vendee’s recorded equitable interest and right to the deed at payoff; the trustee generally cannot defeat a recorded, specifically-enforceable contract.
  • Assignability by buyer: The vendee’s equitable interest is generally assignable (it was the assigned interest at issue in lenman-v-jones-1911), subject to contract terms; anti-assignment and due-on-sale clauses are enforced per their terms (and the Garn-St. Germain overlay for underlying loans). — D.C. Code § 42-401 (recording the assignment).
  • Survivorship / divorce treatment: The vendee’s equitable interest is real property that passes by will/intestacy and is divisible marital property on divorce under general D.C. domestic-relations and probate law. — see needs_verification for any installment-contract-specific gloss.

8. Case Law (real, verified)

CaseYearTopicHolding (plain English)Source
lenman-v-jones-19111911equitable_interestA vendee under a contract to buy D.C. land becomes the equitable owner and may compel specific performance; that equitable interest is assignable, and the assignee stands in the vendee’s shoes. Confirms equitable conversion in the District of Columbia.https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/222/51

Topic-coverage note (rubric row 6): A verified equitable_interest case is in place (Lenman v. Jones). D.C. has no verified controlling case squarely on the remedies / forfeiture topic for installment land contracts (none located); this is flagged in needs_verification rather than filled with an out-of-jurisdiction or fabricated decision.

9. Edge Cases (state-specific notes)

  • garn-st-germain-due-on-sale — A D.C. contract-for-deed sale can trigger a due-on-sale clause on an underlying loan; no D.C. statute conditions a wrap on lender consent, and a senior § 42-815 power-of-sale foreclosure can wipe the buyer’s junior equitable interest.
  • § 16-1106 performance bar — A vendor cannot eject/forfeit out a vendee who has performed enough to be entitled to a conveyance; D.C.’s statutory check on strict forfeiture, distinct from a Skendzel substantial-equity sale.
  • §§ 16-1116–16-1123 improvement valuation — In an ejectment to recover land sold under contract, a good-faith improving occupant’s improvements are valued by the jury and the vendor must pay or submit to a tender procedure.
  • TOPA (§ 42-3404.02) — Selling occupied residential property on terms can trigger a tenant’s opportunity-to-purchase rights; single-family accommodations were largely exempted in 2018 (notice plus narrow elderly/disabled carve-out).
  • (Add: manufactured/mobile-home contracts; SCRA servicemember protections; whether a defaulting equitable owner can be reclassified as a tenant for summary eviction — a national CFD flashpoint.)

10. Operations

  • Where records live: The D.C. Recorder of Deeds (Office of Tax and Revenue) records deeds, contracts/memoranda, deeds of trust, and releases for the entire District (single jurisdiction — no counties). — D.C. Recorder of Deeds, https://otr.cfo.dc.gov/page/recorder-deeds
  • Public-access / agency portals: D.C. Recorder of Deeds e-recording and document search (OTR); Office of Tax and Revenue for recordation/transfer tax and the homestead deduction; D.C. Courts (Superior Court, Civil Division) for ejectment, specific-performance, and quiet-title actions. — https://otr.cfo.dc.gov/
  • Who may draft (UPL notes): Drafting a contract for deed for another for compensation, and litigating an ejectment/forfeiture/quiet-title action, are law practice; non-attorney drafting/enforcing for others risks UPL exposure under D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 49. Because D.C. has no standardized statutory CFD form, attorney drafting is the norm.
  • Typical costs: Recorder per-document recording fees; recordation tax (§ 42-1103) and transfer tax (§ 47-903) at 1.1%/1.45% (+0.35% additional recordation) on the taxable transfer; litigation costs for any Superior Court enforcement.
  • Typical timelines: No statutory cure or cancellation clock for a contract for deed (none exists); default enforcement runs on the Superior Court civil litigation timeline for ejectment/specific performance/quiet title, not a fixed statutory period. (Contrast the deed-of-trust 30-day pre-sale notice of § 42-815, which does not govern CFDs.) — D.C. Code § 42-815.
  • Key agencies: D.C. Recorder of Deeds (OTR); D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue; D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking (SAFE/MLO licensing); D.C. Office of the Attorney General (CPPA enforcement); Superior Court of D.C.
  • Useful forms: Recorded contract for deed or memorandum of contract; recordation/transfer tax return (FP-7/C) filed with OTR; quiet-title and ejectment pleadings (Superior Court).

11. Meta

Disclaimer. This page is legal information, not legal advice, and may be out of date. The District of Columbia has no contract-for-deed-specific statute; the instrument is governed by general real-property, contract, and equity law, and the remedy on default turns heavily on the contract’s terms and the facts. Consult a licensed District of Columbia attorney before drafting, enforcing, or signing an installment land contract.

Graph View

Backlinks