West Virginia

West Virginia — Contract for Deed / 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.

West Virginia has no enacted contract-for-deed–specific statute. The instrument — locally a “land contract” or “land installment contract” — is governed by general real-property and contract common law plus the general statute of frauds (W. Va. Code §36-1-3), the vendor’s-lien statute (§38-1-1), the recording acts (§§40-1-8, 40-1-9; §39-1-2), and the general usury statute (§47-6-5). A consumer-protection bill that would have created a dedicated land-installment-contract article (SB 191, 2024, proposing W. Va. Code §§37-16-1 to -9 — notice of default, a 45-day cure right, and treatment of the instrument as a secured loan) died in the Senate Judiciary Committee and was never enacted; predecessor bills (SB 191 in 2023, SB 500 in 2022) likewise failed. So the rules below are judge-made, not codified.

The remedy regime is classified hybrid. West Virginia courts recognize that the vendee holds a present equitable estate (equitable conversion — timberlake-v-heflin-1989), and a defaulting vendee with an equitable interest cannot be summarily evicted in magistrate court; termination of a land contract requires a judicial proceeding in circuit court (the vendee’s equitable interest must be adjudicated). A contractual forfeiture clause is not automatically void, but it is policed in equity and may be refused where enforcement would be unconscionable. There is no statutory cancellation/cure regime and no controlling West Virginia decision squarely adopting the Skendzel “treat-as-a-mortgage” rule for installment land contracts — that gap is flagged under needs_verification.

0. Identity & Terminology

• In-state name(s): “land contract” and “land installment contract” are the common practice terms; “contract for deed” and “installment land contract” describe the same instrument. The buyer is the vendee; the seller is the vendor. The defeated 2024 bill used the defined term “land installment contract.” — SB 191 (2024, not enacted), https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb191+intr.htm&yr=2024&sesstype=RS&i=191
• Recognition: Common law (general real-property and contract doctrine). There is no CFD-specific statute; the instrument is recognized through the statute of frauds (§36-1-3), the equitable-conversion case law (timberlake-v-heflin-1989, bryant-v-willison-real-estate-co-1986), and the general recording and vendor’s-lien statutes. — W. Va. Code §36-1-3, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/36-1-3/
• Statutory home: None specific. General provisions that govern: §36-1-3 (statute of frauds — land-sale contracts in writing); §38-1-1 (vendor’s lien; enforced by suit in equity); §§40-1-8 & 40-1-9 (recorded land-sale contract has deed-equivalent effect; unrecorded instruments void as to creditors and BFP purchasers); §39-1-2 (recording mechanics); §47-6-5 (legal/contract interest rate); ch. 11, art. 22 (real-estate transfer/excise tax). — https://code.wvlegislature.gov/36/
• Remedy regime: hybrid. Contractual forfeiture is available in principle but is equity-policed and must be enforced judicially in circuit court, not by magistrate eviction, because the vendee holds an equitable estate (timberlake-v-heflin-1989; the vendor’s lien is “enforced by a suit in equity,” §38-1-1). No statutory cure/cancellation regime exists, and no controlling West Virginia case adopts a categorical mortgage-treatment rule. — W. Va. Code §38-1-1, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/38-1-1/

1. Formation & Mandatory Disclosures

• Statute of frauds: Writing required. “No contract for the sale of land, or the lease thereof for more than one year, shall be enforceable unless the contract or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing and signed by the party to be charged thereby, or by his agent.” (Consideration need not be expressed.) — W. Va. Code §36-1-3, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/36-1-3/
• Mandatory disclosures: No CFD-specific statutory disclosure schedule exists (contrast Texas §§5.069–5.070 or Minnesota ch. 559A). The proposed vendor-disclosure and notice-of-default regime in SB 191 (2024) was never enacted. General doctrines apply: common-law fraud, and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (ch. 46A) where a land contract functions as consumer credit. No prescribed CFD disclosure form exists, and there is no statutory per-omission penalty specific to land contracts. — SB 191 (2024, not enacted), https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb191+intr.htm&yr=2024&sesstype=RS&i=191; see needs_verification (scope of ch. 46A application to seller-carried land contracts).
• Recording requirement: Not mandatory, but determinative of priority. A written land-sale contract is not required to be recorded, but once recorded it has the same effect against creditors and purchasers as a recorded deed (§40-1-8), and unrecorded contracts/deeds are void as to creditors and subsequent purchasers for value without notice until recorded (§40-1-9). Recording is by the county clerk on acknowledgment or proof (§39-1-2). No recording deadline and no party is statutorily compelled to record; the vendee records to protect priority. — W. Va. Code §40-1-8, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/40-1-8/; §40-1-9, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/40-1-9/; §39-1-2, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/39-1-2/
• Annual accounting statement: No statutory annual-accounting mandate for land contracts (the proposed SB 191 accounting/notice provisions were not enacted). Contract terms govern. — SB 191 (2024, not enacted), https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb191+intr.htm&yr=2024&sesstype=RS&i=191
• Prepayment: No CFD-specific prepayment statute. Note that under §47-6-5, if a residential real-estate loan is written at the elevated 9% ceiling, the contract must state “there shall be no penalty whatever for prepayment of the loan in whole or in part” — i.e., a no-prepayment-penalty condition attaches to that higher rate tier. — W. Va. Code §47-6-5, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/47-6-5/
• Usury / interest cap: General usury law is W. Va. Code §47-6-5: the legal rate is 6%; parties may contract in writing up to 8%; for a loan secured by single-family or multifamily residential real estate, the ceiling is 9% provided the contract bars any prepayment penalty. “Except in cases where it is otherwise specially provided by law” — other rate statutes (e.g., regulated consumer credit under ch. 46A) may displace these caps. A usurious contract is void as to all interest, with a borrower recovery of four times the interest (minimum $100) under §47-6-6. Whether a hard cap binds a seller-carry credit sale (vs. a “loan”) is fact-specific. — W. Va. Code §47-6-5, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/47-6-5/

2. Buyer’s Equitable Interest

• Equitable title passes / equitable conversion recognized: Yes. “After the execution of a valid contract of sale and before the legal title passes by deed, the vendor is regarded in equity as holding the legal title in trust for the vendee, and the latter as holding the purchase money in trust for the vendor. The purchaser thereby acquires a vendable interest, an equitable estate which, at his death, descends to his heirs in the same manner as a legal estate.” — timberlake-v-heflin-1989, 379 S.E.2d 149 (W. Va. 1989), https://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/1989/17978-5.html; see equitable-conversion.
• Buyer’s interest recordable: Yes — the contract (or a memorandum) is recordable and, once recorded, carries deed-equivalent priority effect (§40-1-8); recording defeats the §40-1-9 voidness as to later BFP purchasers and creditors. — https://code.wvlegislature.gov/40-1-8/
• Buyer’s interest insurable: Vendee’s equitable interest is a “vendable … equitable estate” (timberlake-v-heflin-1989) and is insurable; vendee’s- interest endorsements and owner’s policies at payoff are available from West Virginia title insurers. (No statutory bar located.)
• Risk of loss: Contract-governed. The parties may allocate the risk of pre-conveyance casualty loss by contract; where the contract places risk on the vendor, the equitable-conversion default (risk on the equitable owner/vendee) does not apply. — bryant-v-willison-real-estate-co-1986, 350 S.E.2d 748 (W. Va. 1986), https://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/1986/17124-5.html
• Improvements and waste: The vendee in possession holds the equitable estate and may improve; on forfeiture, improvements are at risk. No CFD-specific waste statute; general waste and unjust-enrichment principles apply, and improvements/ payments factor into the equity a court weighs before enforcing a forfeiture (§§ 3, 3b). — see needs_verification (controlling waste/improvement-offset case).

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

• Primary remedy: Judicial enforcement in circuit court (equity). Because the vendee holds an equitable estate, a defaulted land contract is not terminated by self-help or by a magistrate-court eviction; the vendor proceeds in circuit court — by an equity suit to enforce the contractual forfeiture, to enforce the vendor’s lien (§38-1-1, “enforced by a suit in equity”), to obtain specific performance / the purchase price, or to recover possession (ejectment) against the equitable owner. — W. Va. Code §38-1-1, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/38-1-1/
• Forfeiture available? Yes by contract, but equity-policed — not strict and self-executing. A forfeiture clause is enforceable in principle, but a West Virginia court sitting in equity may refuse to enforce a forfeiture that would be unconscionable (e.g., where the vendee has substantial equity or has substantially performed); the vendee’s equitable interest must be cut off by a court adjudication, not unilaterally. There is no statutory cure period. — W. Va. Code §38-1-1, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/38-1-1/; see needs_verification (the controlling West Virginia forfeiture-scrutiny decision and its exact standard).
  • Substantial-equity bar: No statutory bar, and no controlling West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals holding squarely adopting a Skendzel-style substantial-equity rule for installment land contracts was retrieved this run. The vendee’s protection runs through general equity (anti-forfeiture relief / unconscionability) and the requirement of a judicial proceeding, not a fixed equity threshold. — see skendzel-v-marshall-1973; needs_verification.
• Statutory cancellation: None exists. West Virginia has no notice-and-cure statutory cancellation regime for land contracts (the proposed SB 191 45-day cure regime was not enacted). — SB 191 (2024, not enacted), https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb191+intr.htm&yr=2024&sesstype=RS&i=191
• Judicial foreclosure required when: A vendor who has reserved or relies on a vendor’s lien for unpaid purchase money enforces it by suit in equity (§38-1-1) — the equity analogue of foreclosure. Even where the vendor invokes a forfeiture clause, the vendee’s equitable interest must be terminated through a circuit-court proceeding. — https://code.wvlegislature.gov/38-1-1/
• Acceleration enforceable? Conditional — per contract terms, subject to equitable scrutiny. No CFD-specific statute governs acceleration; an acceleration clause is enforced according to its terms but, like forfeiture, is subject to equitable defenses. — see needs_verification.
• Restitution offset on forfeiture? Not statutorily required, but a court of equity weighing whether to enforce a forfeiture will consider the vendee’s payments and improvements; restitution/offset is a discretionary equitable outcome rather than a fixed entitlement. — see needs_verification.
• Seller’s other remedies: suit in equity to enforce the vendor’s lien (§38-1-1); specific performance / action for the price; damages; ejectment to recover possession; quiet title after a judicially confirmed forfeiture. — https://code.wvlegislature.gov/38-1-1/

▸ For Sellers / Operators — West Virginia gives you no statutory forfeiture short-cut and no statutory cure clock — but also no statutory consumer-protection schedule (the 2024 SB 191 reform died in committee). The deal-defining facts are judge-made: (1) Your buyer holds a recognized equitable estate the moment the contract is signed (Timberlake v. Heflin), so you cannot take the property back by self-help or by a magistrate-court eviction — termination runs through a circuit-court equity proceeding. (2) A forfeiture clause is enforceable in principle but equity-policed: a court can refuse to enforce a forfeiture it finds unconscionable, especially where the buyer has built substantial equity or substantially performed — so draft a real notice-and-cure mechanism and document defaults. (3) Record the contract or a memorandum to lock priority (§40-1-8) — an unrecorded contract is void as to later good-faith purchasers and creditors (§40-1-9). (4) Mind the §47-6-5 rate caps (6% legal / 8% written / 9% residential-with-no-prepayment-penalty) and your federal threshold exposure (§4). Because the law here is common-law and thin, a clean, fully-disclosed, recorded contract with a contractual cure right is your best enforceability insurance.

▸ For Buyers — Your strongest protections are structural: you hold an equitable estate (Timberlake v. Heflin), you cannot be summarily evicted in magistrate court (the vendor must sue in circuit court), and a court of equity can refuse to enforce a forfeiture that is unconscionable or that would strip substantial equity. Record your contract to protect against the seller’s later buyers and creditors (§§40-1-8, 40-1-9).

3b. Remedies — Advanced

• Election of remedies: No CFD-specific statute. General election-of-remedies doctrine applies; a vendor generally cannot both keep all payments by forfeiture and recover the full price. — see needs_verification (controlling West Virginia land-contract election case).
• Deficiency after forfeiture/foreclosure: No CFD-specific statute. On enforcement of a vendor’s lien in equity, ordinary deficiency principles for judicially enforced security interests apply; a pure contractual forfeiture (keeping payments and retaking the land) typically forecloses a separate money deficiency. — see needs_verification.
• Anti-forfeiture / equitable relief from forfeiture: West Virginia courts sitting in equity may relieve against forfeiture where enforcement would be unconscionable; this is the principal buyer protection in the absence of a statute. The exact articulated standard (e.g., “shocks the conscience”) was described by secondary sources but not pinned to a retrieved controlling opinion this run. — see needs_verification.
• Ejectment vs. eviction path: Owner path, not tenant path. A defaulting land-contract vendee is an equitable owner, not a tenant, and may not be removed by a summary magistrate-court eviction; the vendor must proceed in circuit court (ejectment / equity), where the vendee’s equitable interest is adjudicated. — timberlake-v-heflin-1989 (equitable estate); Dishman v. Jarrell, 271 S.E.2d 348 (W. Va. 1980) (a magistrate court is barred from evicting a land-contract vendee asserting an equitable interest; the vendee is an equitable owner, not a tenant) — exact year confirmed against the S.E.2d reporter volume; see needs_verification (parallel W. Va. Reports cite).
• Quiet title after cancellation: A vendor restores marketable record title by obtaining a circuit-court decree confirming forfeiture/termination (and, if needed, quieting title); the recorded contract clouds title until judicially or consensually released. — see needs_verification (standard practice cite).
• Forfeited payments treatment: Whether retained payments are enforceable liquidated damages or an unenforceable penalty is governed by general contract penalty/liquidated-damages doctrine and equitable anti-forfeiture relief; no CFD-specific 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; recording the contract (§40-1-8) is the vendee’s chief priority defense, defeating later creditors/BFP purchasers under §40-1-9. — https://code.wvlegislature.gov/40-1-9/

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

• Dodd-Frank exposure: Federal seller-financing rules apply in West Virginia with no special state 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 (with ATR, no negative amortization) is the next tier — per the seller-financer exclusion at 15 U.S.C. §1602(dd)(2) and 12 C.F.R. §1026.36(a)(4)–(5) / §1026.43. Notably, the (failed) SB 191 would have expressly declared land installment contracts “loans secured by an interest in real property” subject to TILA and the WV mortgage-lender act — confirming the policy direction, but it is not law. — see dodd-frank-seller-financing; SB 191 (2024, not enacted), https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb191+intr.htm&yr=2024&sesstype=RS&i=191
• SAFE Act MLO licensing: Sellers exceeding the federal seller-financer thresholds may trigger mortgage loan originator licensing. West Virginia administers SAFE-Act/MLO licensing through the Division of Financial Institutions (DFI) under the West Virginia Residential Mortgage Lender, Broker and Servicer Act (W. Va. Code ch. 31-17) and the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act framework. — see safe-act-mlo; needs_verification (exact WV S.A.F.E./MLO chapter cite and DFI thresholds).
• State consumer-protection overlay / CFPB enforcement notes: No CFD-specific predatory-sales statute exists (the Texas/Minnesota model). The generally applicable overlay is the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (ch. 46A) for unfair/deceptive consumer-credit practices, plus common-law fraud. Post-2016 CFPB/state-AG scrutiny of predatory contract-for-deed selling (e.g. Harbour Portfolio) is the national compliance backdrop and was the express motivation for the failed SB 191. — W. Va. Code ch. 46A; see needs_verification (precise ch. 46A sections applicable to seller-carried land contracts).

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

• Memorandum recording: Permitted; deed-equivalent effect once recorded. A written land-sale contract (or memorandum) recorded with the county clerk is, from the time of recording, “as valid as if the contract were a deed” against creditors and purchasers (§40-1-8); unrecorded, it is void as to later BFP purchasers and creditors (§40-1-9). — W. Va. Code §40-1-8, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/40-1-8/
• Garn-St. Germain due-on-sale: A land contract is a transfer that can trigger a due-on-sale clause in an underlying loan; Garn-St. Germain (12 U.S.C. §1701j-3) preempts state restrictions and makes due-on-sale clauses generally enforceable, subject to the enumerated residential exemptions (which generally do not cover an installment land sale where the borrower parts with occupancy/possession). See garn-st-germain-due-on-sale.
• Underlying-mortgage / wrap: Wrap-around land contracts over an existing mortgage are not prohibited by West Virginia statute but carry the standard risk: the senior lender may call or foreclose the underlying loan on a due-on-sale trigger even if the vendee pays the vendor on time, and a senior foreclosure can extinguish the vendee’s junior equitable interest. No West Virginia statute conditions a wrap on lender consent, so disclosure and payment escrow are contractual best practice. — see garn-st-germain-due-on-sale.
• Deed delivery: The vendor retains legal title and conveys by deed at payoff (commonly a general/special warranty deed); escrow of the executed deed is a common mechanism. The transfer/excise tax (ch. 11, art. 22) attaches on delivery/recording of the deed, so it is typically paid at the payoff conveyance rather than on the contract (§ 6).
• Marketable title at payoff: The vendor must convey marketable title at payoff; the recorded contract plus the fulfillment/warranty deed clears the chain.
• Title insurance: Available to vendees (vendee’s-interest and, at payoff, owner’s policies) through West Virginia title insurers.
• Seller death / bankruptcy effect: The vendor’s interest (legal title + payment stream) passes to the estate or bankruptcy estate subject to the vendee’s recorded equitable interest and right to the deed at payoff (the vendee’s interest is a “vendable equitable estate” that “descends to his heirs,” timberlake-v-heflin-1989).

6. Tax Treatment

• IRC §453 installment reporting: A land contract is an installment sale; a non-dealer vendor may report gain under IRC §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 property tax. West Virginia assesses real property to the owner of record / beneficial owner; allocation between vendor and vendee is by contract. — see needs_verification (statutory assessment-to-equitable- owner cite).
• Homestead exemption for equitable owner: West Virginia’s residential property tax relief (e.g., the homestead exemption for persons 65+/disabled under W. Va. Const. art. X and ch. 11, art. 6B) turns on ownership/occupancy; whether a land-contract vendee qualifies as “owner” for a given exemption was not pinned to a retrieved primary source this run. — see needs_verification.
• Transfer / documentary-stamp tax: West Virginia imposes an excise tax on the privilege of transferring real property (ch. 11, art. 22) at $1.10per$500 of value (state), plus a county component (up to $1.65per$500 where the county raised it), evidenced by documentary stamps, payable on delivery/acceptance/ recording of the document transferring title — i.e., it attaches to the deed, so for a land contract the tax is generally due at the payoff deed, not on the contract itself. — W. Va. Code §11-22-2, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/11-22-2/; §11-22-6, https://code.wvlegislature.gov/11-22-6/
• Mortgage registration tax: None — West Virginia imposes no separate mortgage recording/registration tax; recording is a per-document clerk fee.

7. Bankruptcy & Death / Divorce

• Buyer bankruptcy: Whether a West Virginia land contract is an executory contract (11 U.S.C. §365) or a secured debt in the vendee’s bankruptcy is subject to the national split. West Virginia’s equitable-conversion view — vendee holds the equitable estate, vendor holds legal title in trust / as security (timberlake-v-heflin-1989) — supports secured-debt-style treatment, but the federal characterization is fact- and court-specific. — 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.
• Assignability by buyer: The vendee’s equitable interest is a “vendable … equitable estate” (timberlake-v-heflin-1989) and is generally assignable subject to contract terms; anti-assignment and due-on-sale clauses are enforced per their terms (and the federal Garn-St. Germain overlay for underlying loans).
• Survivorship / divorce treatment: The vendee’s equitable estate is real property that descends to heirs (timberlake-v-heflin-1989) and is divisible marital property on divorce under West Virginia equitable-distribution law (ch. 48); timberlake-v-heflin-1989 itself arose from a marital-property transfer.

8. Case Law (real, verified)

Case	Year	Topic	Holding (plain English)	Source
timberlake-v-heflin-1989	1989	equitable_interest	Under equitable conversion, after a valid land-sale contract the vendor holds legal title in trust for the vendee, and the vendee acquires a vendable equitable estate that descends to heirs like a legal estate. A land-sale contract must satisfy the §36-1-3 writing requirement.	https://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/1989/17978-5.html
bryant-v-willison-real-estate-co-1986	1986	equitable_interest / risk_of_loss	Parties to a real-estate sales contract may allocate the risk of pre-conveyance casualty loss; where the contract puts risk on the vendor, the equitable-conversion default (risk on the vendee) does not apply, and the vendor bears the loss.	https://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/1986/17124-5.html

9. Edge Cases (state-specific notes)

• garn-st-germain-due-on-sale — A West Virginia land contract can trigger an underlying loan’s due-on-sale clause; no state statute conditions a wrap on lender consent, so wrap risk is allocated by contract.
• No statutory cancellation regime — Unlike Minnesota (ch. 559A) or Washington (RCW 61.30), West Virginia has no notice-and-cure cancellation statute; the failed SB 191 (2024) would have created one (45-day cure). Default is handled by common-law forfeiture, equity-policed, in circuit court.
• No magistrate eviction of a land-contract vendee — the vendee’s equitable estate means termination requires a circuit-court equity/ejectment proceeding, not a summary magistrate eviction.
• (Add: manufactured/mobile-home land contracts; SCRA servicemember protections; ch. 46A consumer-credit overlay; the controlling forfeiture-unconscionability opinion once pinned.)

10. Operations

• Where records live: County clerk of the county commission where the land sits records deeds, land-sale contracts, and memoranda (§39-1-2; §40-1-8).
• Recorder / agency portals: County clerk recording (e.g., Kanawha, Berkeley, Monongalia, Cabell county clerks); transfer/excise tax and the $20 transfer fee are collected by the county clerk at recording (ch. 11, art. 22).
• Who may draft (UPL notes): Land-contract forms are used in practice, but enforcement runs through circuit-court equity proceedings (forfeiture/vendor’s lien/ejectment); non-attorney drafting or termination for others risks UPL exposure, and the equitable-scrutiny standard makes counsel advisable on default.
• Typical costs: Per-document clerk recording fees; transfer/excise tax ($1.10/$500 state + county component) and a $20 transfer fee on the deed at payoff (ch. 11, art. 22); litigation cost of a circuit-court forfeiture/lien suit.
• Typical timelines: No statutory cure clock — timing is set by the contract’s notice-and-cure terms plus the duration of a circuit-court equity proceeding to terminate the vendee’s interest.
• Key agencies: County clerk (recording, transfer tax); West Virginia State Tax Department (excise tax / sales-listing); West Virginia Division of Financial Institutions (SAFE/MLO licensing); Office of the Attorney General (Consumer Credit and Protection Act).
• Useful forms: Recorded land contract or memorandum of contract; warranty deed at payoff; declaration of consideration/value and sales listing form for transfer tax (ch. 11, art. 22, §§4, 6).

11. Meta

• sources:
  • {type: statute, url: https://code.wvlegislature.gov/36-1-3/, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: statute, url: https://code.wvlegislature.gov/38-1-1/, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: statute, url: https://code.wvlegislature.gov/40-1-8/, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: statute, url: https://code.wvlegislature.gov/40-1-9/, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: statute, url: https://code.wvlegislature.gov/39-1-2/, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: statute, url: https://code.wvlegislature.gov/47-6-5/, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: statute, url: https://code.wvlegislature.gov/11-22-2/, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: statute, url: https://code.wvlegislature.gov/36/, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: bill, url: https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb191+intr.htm&yr=2024&sesstype=RS&i=191, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: bill_history, url: https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/Bills_history.cfm?input=191&year=2024&sessiontype=RS&btype=bill, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: case, url: https://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/1989/17978-5.html, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: case, url: https://law.justia.com/cases/west-virginia/supreme-court/1986/17124-5.html, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: secondary, url: https://legalaidwv.org/legal-information/installment-land-sale-contracts/, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
  • {type: secondary, url: https://sojotitle.com/land-sale-contracts-west-virginia/, retrieved: 2026-06-08}
• needs_verification:
  • The controlling West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals decision on forfeiture-clause scrutiny / relief against forfeiture for installment land contracts, and its exact articulated standard (secondary sources describe a “shocks the conscience” / unconscionability test, but no controlling opinion was retrieved and pinned this run).
  • Whether West Virginia case law squarely adopts a Skendzel-style “treat-as-a-mortgage” rule (categorical) or only equity-polices forfeiture case-by-case — left empty pending a retrieved controlling opinion.
  • Parallel West Virginia Reports citation for Dishman v. Jarrell. The S.E.2d citation 271 S.E.2d 348 (W. Va. 1980) is confirmed (the 271 S.E.2d reporter volume is a 1980 volume, resolving the 1980-vs-1989 discrepancy in secondary sources), and the proposition (no magistrate eviction of a land-contract vendee asserting an equitable interest) is corroborated by multiple sources; the parallel W. Va. Reports cite and full opinion text were not pinned this run.
  • Scope of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (ch. 46A) and TILA as applied to seller-carried land contracts (the failed SB 191 would have made this explicit; current application is doctrinal).
  • Exact WV SAFE-Act / MLO licensing chapter cite and DFI thresholds (ch. 31-17 framework identified; precise section not pinned).
  • Whether a land-contract vendee qualifies as “owner” for West Virginia homestead/property-tax exemptions (ch. 11, art. 6B) — not pinned to a retrieved primary source.
  • Federal characterization of a West Virginia land contract in buyer bankruptcy (executory contract §365 vs. secured debt) — no controlling WV-specific holding retrieved.
  • Controlling WV authority on deficiency / election of remedies / forfeited- payment penalty-vs-liquidated-damages for land contracts.
• open_questions:
  • Will a future West Virginia legislature enact the SB 191 land-installment-contract regime (notice, 45-day cure, secured-loan treatment)? Track the 2025/2026 sessions.
  • What equity margin or degree of part-performance leads a West Virginia chancellor to refuse a contractual forfeiture in practice?
• changelog:
  • 2026-06-08 — Initial authored page. Confirmed no enacted CFD-specific statute (SB 191/2024 died in Senate Judiciary; SB 191/2023 and SB 500/2022 also failed). Primary sourcing from WV Code §§36-1-3, 38-1-1, 40-1-8, 40-1-9, 39-1-2, 47-6-5, 11-22-2/-6 (code.wvlegislature.gov), SB 191 bill text + history, and verified cases Timberlake v. Heflin (1989) and Bryant v. Willison Real Estate Co. (1986) via Justia. Remedy regime classified hybrid (common-law forfeiture available but equity-policed and judicially enforced in circuit court; no statutory cancellation regime; no controlling mortgage-treatment rule pinned).
  • 2026-06-08 — Adversarial citation-verification pass. Independently re-retrieved and confirmed every cited statute against code.wvlegislature.gov (§§36-1-3, 38-1-1, 40-1-8, 40-1-9, 39-1-2, 47-6-5, 47-6-6, 11-22-2, 11-22-6) and SB 191/2024 (died in Senate Judiciary, not enacted). Confirmed Timberlake v. Heflin (379 S.E.2d 149, W. Va. 1989) and Bryant v. Willison Real Estate Co. (350 S.E.2d 748, W. Va. 1986) holdings/quotes via multiple databases (Justia, Quimbee, Studicata, Casebriefs, WVU Law Review, Caselaw Access Project). Confirmed Dishman v. Jarrell, 271 S.E.2d 348 (W. Va. 1980) is a real opinion standing for the no-magistrate-eviction rule; resolved the 1980-vs-1989 secondary discrepancy in favor of 1980. No fabricated or unretrieved citations found; all residual gaps are honest needs_verification flags.
• cross_links: forfeiture-vs-foreclosure, equitable-conversion, dodd-frank-seller-financing, safe-act-mlo, garn-st-germain-due-on-sale, irc-453-installment-sale, skendzel-v-marshall-1973, sebastian-v-floyd-1979, timberlake-v-heflin-1989, bryant-v-willison-real-estate-co-1986

---

Disclaimer. This page is legal information, not legal advice, and may be out of date. West Virginia has no contract-for-deed–specific statute; land-contract default and forfeiture are governed by general equity and turn heavily on facts, and a forfeiture may be refused or modified by a court. Consult a licensed West Virginia attorney before drafting, enforcing, or signing a land installment contract.