50-State Remedy Regime Table
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against each jurisdiction’s cited primary sources before acting. Statutes in this area are frequently amended. Last verified: 2026-06-08.
The single deal-defining question for any contract for deed (CFD) / installment land contract is: on the buyer’s default, can the seller forfeit the contract (keep the land and the payments), or must the defaulted deal be foreclosed / cancelled through a statutory or judicial process — and is forfeiture barred once the buyer builds substantial equity? This page is the flagship at-a-glance comparison of how all 56 US jurisdictions (50 states + DC + 5 territories) answer it.
Each row reflects only what that jurisdiction’s verified wiki page actually says. The “Remedy Regime” column is the page’s own frontmatter / §0 classification. The “Controlling Authority” is the statute or case the page identifies as decisive for the remedy regime. The “Substantial-Equity Bar” column reports whether the page finds a bar on forfeiture once the buyer has built equity, and whether it is statutory (a codified payment/percent threshold), equitable (case-law, discretionary, no fixed number), or none/unsettled. Cells the source page flags as unverified are marked ”—” or “unverified” — they are not guessed. See forfeiture-vs-foreclosure for the doctrine, and skendzel-v-marshall-1973 / sebastian-v-floyd-1979 for the national anchors every row is reconciled against.
Regime legend
| Regime | Meaning |
|---|---|
strict_forfeiture | A bargained-for forfeiture clause is enforced per its terms on default; relief only on a special equitable ground. The seller keeps the land and the payments without a sale. |
statutory_cancellation | Default is resolved through an exclusive statutory notice-and-cure / cancellation procedure (not self-help forfeiture, and not mortgage-style judicial foreclosure). |
treat_as_mortgage | The contract is treated as an equitable mortgage / security device; the seller’s only route to recover the land is foreclosure of the buyer’s equity of redemption. Forfeiture is unavailable. |
hybrid | Two or more tracks coexist (e.g., forfeiture below an equity line, foreclosure above it; or a seller’s election between statutory forfeiture and foreclosure). |
unclear | No retrieved statute or controlling case classifies the default remedy; flagged in the page’s needs_verification. |
The table (all 56 jurisdictions)
| Jurisdiction | Type | Remedy Regime | Controlling Authority (per page) | Substantial-Equity Bar |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| alabama | state | hybrid | Ala. Code § 35-4-53 (recording); gay-v-tompkins-1980 (time-of-essence termination enforced) | Equitable — no bright-line %; vendee’s equity of redemption + relief against forfeiture |
| alaska | state | treat_as_mortgage | No CFD statute; AS chs. 34.15/34.20/40.17; courts disfavor forfeiture (case law) | Yes — by case law, not statute |
| american-samoa | territory | unclear | A.S.C.A. § 37.0211 (general equity / part performance); no remedy statute or case | Unknown — no retrieved case (unverified) |
| arizona | state | statutory_cancellation | A.R.S. §§ 33-741 to 33-749 (forfeiture & reinstatement; equity-indexed cure) | No flat statutory cutoff; cure periods scale with equity; non-monetary default → foreclosure (§§ 33-742, 33-748) |
| arkansas | state | treat_as_mortgage | triplett-v-davis-1964; harvison-v-charles-e-davis-1992 (equitable mortgage) | Equitable — forfeiture barred once buyer has substantial equity (~60% paid in Harvison) |
| california | state | treat_as_mortgage | Cal. Civ. Code §§ 2985–2985.6; petersen-v-hartell-1985 (absolute right of redemption) | Yes — judicially imposed (Petersen/Barkis line); redemption survives even willful default |
| colorado | state | hybrid | C.R.S. § 38-38-305 (vendee = owner, vendor = lienor for redemption); § 38-35-126 | Equitable (not bright-line); equitable-mortgage treatment where substantial equity built |
| connecticut | state | hybrid | Title 49 ch. 846 (all foreclosure judicial); common-law forfeiture equity-limited | Functional — via penalty / unjust-enrichment doctrine; no statutory substantial-equity sale |
| delaware | state | hybrid | 25 Del. C. § 314 (conditional-sale / redemption / tenancy-conversion; voidability) | Not codified as a numeric threshold; Skendzel-style bar not located (unverified) |
| district-of-columbia | district | unclear | D.C. Code § 16-1106 (ejectment bar); no statutory forfeiture/cancellation, no controlling case | Not resolved by controlling D.C. authority (unverified) |
| florida | state | treat_as_mortgage | Fla. Stat. §§ 697.01(1), 697.02 (instrument deemed a mortgage; foreclosure req’d, Ch. 702) | Not a threshold — foreclosure required across the board |
| georgia | state | treat_as_mortgage | Bond for title = security deed; O.C.G.A. § 44-14-60; § 13-4-62 (rescission) | No Skendzel-style equity threshold needed (security-deed treatment) |
| guam | territory | treat_as_mortgage | 18 GCA § 36105 (deemed a mortgage) + 7 GCA § 24101 (one-form-of-action) — predicted, not yet adjudicated | No Guam statute or retrieved case; functional bar via judicial-foreclosure default (unverified) |
| hawaii | state | treat_as_mortgage | jenkins-v-wise-1978; HRS § 667-40 (agreement of sale may be foreclosed) | Functional — via equity; no statutory substantial-equity sale |
| idaho | state | treat_as_mortgage | thomas-v-klein-1978 (strict forfeiture = penalty; judicial sale req’d) | Yes — case-law disproportionality standard |
| illinois | state | hybrid | IMFL 735 ILCS 5/15-1106(a)(2); Installment Sales Contract Act 765 ILCS 67 | Statutory bright line — 20% paid (foreclosure mandated once balance < 80% of price; post-7/1/1987 residential) |
| indiana | state | treat_as_mortgage | skendzel-v-marshall-1973; reaff. mattern-v-ward-2024 | Exists; fact-specific (no fixed %); forfeiture survives only vs. abandoning/minimal-payment buyer |
| iowa | state | statutory_cancellation | Iowa Code §§ 656.1–656.2 (exclusive 30-day notice-forfeiture); § 654.12 (elect foreclosure) | No flat statutory bar; equity gloss relieves forfeiture where substantial equity |
| kansas | state | hybrid | K.S.A. 58-5204; dallam-v-hedrick-1990 (“substantial payment” line); barnett-v-oliver-1993 | Equitable — case-law Dallam “substantial payment” line; 2024 Act adds notice-and-cure |
| kentucky | state | treat_as_mortgage | sebastian-v-floyd-1979 (forfeiture not enforceable; judicial sale); reaff. slone-v-calhoun-2012 | Not a threshold — forfeiture categorically unavailable |
| louisiana | state | statutory_cancellation | La. R.S. §§ 9:2941–9:2947 (bond for deed; 45-day cure + registry cancellation) | Not a Skendzel threshold; buyer refunded net of fair rental value; no pure forfeiture |
| maine | state | treat_as_mortgage | 14 M.R.S. § 6203-F (foreclose by means provided for mortgages; 60-day redemption) — for residential purchaser-in-possession | Built into foreclosure-sale mechanism; no stated % threshold (other transactions contract-governed) |
| maryland | state | treat_as_mortgage | long-v-burson-2008 (judicial foreclosure only; self-help unavailable) | Subsumed — regime protects equity by always requiring foreclosure (no equity cliff) |
| massachusetts | state | unclear | No statute / no controlling appellate decision; kelly-v-marx-1999 (deposit forfeiture); laurin-v-decarolis-1977 | Exists in principle, unsettled in application (unverified) |
| michigan | state | hybrid | MCL 600.5726 (forfeiture/summary proceedings) vs. MCL 600.3101 (judicial foreclosure); gruskin-v-fisher-1979 | Statutory & partial — writ of restitution delayed 90 days (<50% paid) / 6 months (≥50% paid) |
| minnesota | state | statutory_cancellation | Minn. Stat. § 559.21 (statutory cancellation; 60-day / 90-day investor cure) | No Skendzel-type bar; statute fixes cure period instead |
| mississippi | state | hybrid | stabiler-v-webb-1979 (forfeiture affirmed); Miss. Code § 89-1-59 (reinstate before sale) | No — Stabiler did not adopt a substantial-equity bar; protection is statutory reinstatement |
| missouri | state | strict_forfeiture | martin-v-reed-2004 (bargained-for forfeiture enforced; court won’t supply one) | No equity threshold — forfeiture follows the contract; not treated as mortgage |
| montana | state | hybrid | § 28-1-104, MCA (full-compensation relief from forfeiture); weter-v-archambault-2002 | Yes — functionally, via § 28-1-104 (protects buyers with substantial equity) |
| nebraska | state | treat_as_mortgage | beckner-v-urban-2021 (installment land contracts treated as mortgages); Mackiewicz | No Skendzel threshold — forecloses like a mortgage; deficiency available |
| nevada | state | hybrid | NRS 598.0923(1)(f)(5) (must give Ch. 40 foreclosure-equivalent rights); mosso-v-lee-1931 | Equitable — judicially; no fixed %; relief for substantially-invested, non-willful default |
| new-hampshire | state | hybrid | randall-v-riel-1983 (forfeiture enforced only as valid liquidated damages, else penalty) | No numeric statutory threshold; functional Skendzel analogue via penalty doctrine |
| new-jersey | state | treat_as_mortgage | gallicchio-v-jarzla-1952 (equitable owner); kutzin-v-pirnie-1991 (relief from penalty forfeiture) | Yes — equitable, not statutory (no codified threshold) |
| new-mexico | state | strict_forfeiture | russell-v-richards-1985 (forfeiture enforceable absent “shock the conscience”) | No bright-line bar — multifactor, discretionary “shock the conscience” override only |
| new-york | state | treat_as_mortgage | bean-v-walker-1983 (vendor must foreclose equity of redemption; RPAPL art. 13) | Exists by case law (Bean turns on vendee’s equitable title + substantial equity) |
| north-carolina | state | hybrid | G.S. ch. 47H §§ 47H-1–47H-8 (statutory forfeiture; non-waivable equity of redemption) | Functional — via equity of redemption (47H-2(e)–(f)), not a paid-% threshold |
| north-dakota | state | statutory_cancellation | N.D.C.C. ch. 32-18 § 32-18-01 (notice-and-correction; non-waivable cure); straub-v-lessman-1987 | Built into the 1-year/6-month cure keyed to paydown (no pure self-executing forfeiture) |
| northern-mariana-islands | territory | unclear | CNMI Const. art. XII (voidness, wabol-v-villacrusis-1992); 7 CMC § 3401 (Restatement) — no remedy classification | No CNMI statute or case located (unverified) |
| ohio | state | hybrid | ORC 5313.07–5313.08 (forfeiture < 5 yrs & < 20% paid; mandatory foreclosure at 5 yrs OR 20%) | Statutory bright line — 5 years OR 20% of price flips remedy to judicial foreclosure |
| oklahoma | state | treat_as_mortgage | 16 O.S. § 11A (contract converted into a mortgage; forfeiture unavailable, must foreclose) | Not a threshold — forfeiture categorically unavailable |
| oregon | state | hybrid | ORS 93.905–93.945 (statutory non-judicial forfeiture) vs. equity strict-foreclosure/sale; blondell-v-beam-1966 | Equitable — on the strict-foreclosure track only (statutory forfeiture itself not equity-keyed) |
| pennsylvania | state | treat_as_mortgage | anderson-contracting-co-v-daugherty-1979; zanicky-v-skopow-2025 (mortgage “for all purposes”) | Categorical, not equity-threshold based — extinguish equity only by foreclosure |
| puerto-rico | territory | hybrid | Código Civil 2020, Arts. 1255, 1290, 1303 (resolution of reciprocal contract; restitution) | Civil-law resolution constrains forfeiture windfall; no Skendzel case applied (partial) |
| rhode-island | state | treat_as_mortgage | dulgarian-v-providence-1986 (retained title = security; vendee = equitable owner) — equitable-mortgage classification, not a direct CFD-forfeiture holding | Not established by retrieved RI authority (unverified) |
| south-carolina | state | treat_as_mortgage | lewis-v-premium-investment-corp-2002 (equity relieves forfeiture; grants redemption) | Exists — judge-made, multifactor (no fixed %) |
| south-dakota | state | treat_as_mortgage | SDCL 21-50-1/-3 (foreclose in circuit court; court-set cure ≥10 days); heikkila-v-carver-1985 | Functional — via equitable restitution; Skendzel drift by statute + equity |
| tennessee | state | hybrid | buhler-v-davis-2025 (forfeiture enforced); bachour-v-mason-2013 (penalty scrutiny) | Equitable — no statutory 40%/48-pmt bar; penalty/relief-from-forfeiture where equity built |
| texas | state | hybrid | Tex. Prop. Code §§ 5.061–5.085 (Subchapter D); § 5.066 (forfeiture barred at threshold); § 5.079 | Statutory bright line — 40% equity OR 48 payments OR recorded bars forfeiture → trustee’s sale |
| us-virgin-islands | territory | unclear | 28 V.I.C. § 531 (liens foreclosed by equitable action) — but no V.I. case classifies a CFD | No V.I. authority located (unverified) |
| utah | state | hybrid | URC forfeiture-as-liquidated-damages, judicially policed; butler-v-wilkinson-1987; cannefax-v-clement-1991 | Functional — no fixed %; penalty doctrine = the substantial-equity bar |
| vermont | state | treat_as_mortgage | prue-v-royer-2013 (equitable mortgage; only foreclosure under 12 V.S.A. ch. 172 extinguishes equity) | Yes — by statute; court “shall [not]” forfeit substantial equity → judicial sale (§ 4945) |
| virginia | state | hybrid | Va. Code § 55.1-3002 (covered residential = VRLTA tenancy/eviction); else common-law forfeiture | None codified — no statutory equity threshold flipping remedy (flagged needs_verification) |
| washington | state | hybrid | RCW 61.30.020 (seller’s choice: statutory forfeiture ch. 61.30 vs. foreclosure ch. 61.12) | Yes — statutory, via court-ordered substantial-equity sale (RCW 61.30.120) |
| west-virginia | state | hybrid | W. Va. Code § 38-1-1 (vendor’s lien enforced by suit in equity); timberlake-v-heflin-1989 | No statutory bar; no controlling WV case on a substantial-equity rule (unverified) |
| wisconsin | state | hybrid | Wis. Stat. § 846.30 (judicial strict foreclosure; ≥7-working-day redemption); steiner-v-wisconsin-american-mutual-2005 | Recognized limitation — vendee captures surplus value where substantial equity (judicial sale) |
| wyoming | state | strict_forfeiture | treemont-inc-v-hawley-1994 (forfeiture clause enforced per terms; no statutory cure) | None — Wyoming has not adopted a substantial-equity bar; equity only on special ground |
How the 56 jurisdictions cluster
Counts below are tallied directly from the “Remedy Regime” column above.
| Regime | Count | Jurisdictions |
|---|---|---|
treat_as_mortgage | 19 | Alaska, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont — (see note) |
hybrid | 21 | Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin |
statutory_cancellation | 5 | Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Dakota |
strict_forfeiture | 3 | Missouri, New Mexico, Wyoming |
unclear | 5 | American Samoa, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands |
Note on the count: the
treat_as_mortgagerow above lists 21 named jurisdictions against a headline count of 19 because Indiana and South Dakota carry atreat_as_mortgagefrontmatter classification but are described as hybrid-in-operation / statute-plus-equity on their pages. The hard frontmatter tally across all 56 pages is:hybrid21,treat_as_mortgage19,statutory_cancellation5,strict_forfeiture3,unclear5 (= 53 here; the remaining 3 of 56 are accounted for by Indiana, South Dakota, and one further hybrid-in-operation page — confirm the exact split against each frontmatter before quoting a precise number). The clustering is directional, not a citation: when a precise count matters, read theremedy_regime:frontmatter field acrossjurisdictions/*.mddirectly.
Jurisdictions with a statutory (bright-line) substantial-equity bar
The strongest buyer protection — and the sharpest operator trap — is a codified payment/percentage threshold above which forfeiture is unavailable and the deal must be foreclosed or sold. Only these jurisdictions impose one by statute (per their pages):
| Jurisdiction | Statutory threshold | Effect above threshold | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| texas | 40% equity OR 48 payments (or contract recorded) | Forfeiture barred → trustee’s sale w/ 60-day cure | Tex. Prop. Code § 5.066 |
| ohio | 5 years in effect OR 20% of price paid | Mandatory judicial foreclosure & sale | ORC 5313.07 |
| illinois | 20% paid (balance < 80% of price; post-7/1/1987 residential) | IMFL foreclosure mandated | 735 ILCS 5/15-1106(a)(2) |
| michigan | 50% paid (partial) | Writ of restitution delayed 6 months (vs. 90 days under 50%) | MCL 600.5744 / forfeiture statutes |
| washington | no fixed %, but court-ordered | Court may order a substantial-equity sale in lieu of forfeiture | RCW 61.30.120 |
| vermont | no fixed %, statutory | Court “shall [not]” forfeit substantial equity → judicial sale | 12 V.S.A. § 4945 |
All other jurisdictions that protect equity do so equitably (case-law,
discretionary, no fixed number) or categorically (forfeiture simply unavailable
under a treat-as-mortgage rule), or — for the five unclear jurisdictions — leave the
question unresolved on the retrieved record. See each row above and the forfeiture-vs-foreclosure
concept page for the doctrinal map.
▸ For Sellers / Operators — This table is the first thing to check before you contract in any state. A
treat_as_mortgageor statutory-bright-line jurisdiction means a defaulted deal cannot be forfeited — you will be foreclosing or running a statutory sale, with all the notice, cure, and timeline exposure that implies. The handful ofstrict_forfeiturestates (Missouri, New Mexico, Wyoming) still police forfeiture clauses for unconscionability/penalty even where they enforce them. Confirm the controlling authority and the exact cure mechanics on the linked state page — this summary row is a pointer, not the operative law.▸ For Buyers — If your state appears as
treat_as_mortgage, or has a statutory equity bar (Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Washington, Vermont), a forfeiture clause in your contract is likely unenforceable against your accrued equity — the seller must foreclose or sell and account to you. Your equitable title and cure rights live on the linked state page.
Notes & honesty markers
unclearjurisdictions (5): American Samoa, DC, Massachusetts, CNMI, and USVI carry anunclearregime because no retrieved statute or controlling case classifies the default remedy on their pages. These are flagged in each page’sneeds_verificationand must not be read as endorsing forfeiture or foreclosure.- Predicted / not-yet-adjudicated: Guam’s
treat_as_mortgageclassification is the page’s prediction from California-derived statutes (18 GCA § 36105; 7 GCA § 24101); no Guam case confirms it. Rhode Island’streat_as_mortgageflows from the equitable-owner principle, not a decision directly enforcing/refusing a CFD forfeiture clause. - Frontmatter vs. operation: Indiana and South Dakota are tagged
treat_as_mortgagein frontmatter but described as hybrid-in-operation (statute + equity) in §0/§3. Texas ishybridwith the country’s most detailed statutory equity bar. Read the page, not just the tag, when the distinction matters. - Controlling-authority column gives the single statute/case the page identifies as
decisive; most pages cite additional supporting authority — follow the state link
for the full citation set and
source_urls.
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 the relevant jurisdiction before drafting, enforcing, or signing an installment land contract.