# Skendzel v. Marshall

> Indiana Supreme Court · October 4, 1973 · 261 Ind. 226

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9737490

## Case

- **Full name:** Josephine Skendzel, Jean Legowski and Bernice Wysocki v. Agnes P. Marshall, Charles P. Marshall and Anna J. Blair
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 4, 1973
- **Citations:** 261 Ind. 226; 301 N.E.2d 641; 1973 Ind. LEXIS 443
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Prentice
- **Judges:** Hunter, Arterburn, Debruler, Prentice, Given
- **Cited by:** 160 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9737490

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding invalid as a penalty a land contract vendees' forfeiture of $ 21,-000, "well over one-half the original contract price"

## Opinion text

Concurring Statement
Prentice, J.
I have some concern that our opinion herein might be viewed by some as indicating an attitude of indiference towards the rights of contract vendors. Such a view would not be a true reflection.
*243 Because the installment sales contract, with forfeiture provisions, is a widely employed and generally accepted method of commerce in real estate in this state, it is appropriate that a vendee seeking to avoid the forfeiture, to which he agreed, be required to make a clear showing of the inequity of enforcement. In any given transaction anything short of enforcing the forfeiture provision may be a denial of equity to the vendor. It has been set forth in the majority opinion that if the vendee has little or no real equity in the premises, the court should have no hesitancy in declaring a forfeiture. It follows that if the vendee has indicated his willingness to forego his equity, if any, whether by mere abandonment of the premises, by release or deed or by a failure to make a timely assertion of his claim, he should be barred from thereafter claiming an equity.
If the court finds that forfeiture, although provided for by the terms of the contract, would be unjust, it should nevertheless grant the vendor the maximum relief consistent with equity against a defaulting vendee. In so doing, it should consider that, had the parties known that the forfeiture provision would not be enforceable, other provisions for the protection of the vendor doubtlessly would have been incorporated into the agreement. Generally, this would require that the transaction be treated as a note and mortgage with such provisions as are generally included in such documents customarily employed in the community by prudent investors. Terms customarily included in such notes and mortgages but frequently omitted from contracts include provisions for increased interest during periods of default, provision for the acceleration of the due date of the entire unpaid principal and interest upon a default continuing beyond a reasonable grace period, provisions for attorneys’ fees and other expenses incidental to foreclosure, for the waiver of relief from valuation and appraisement laws and for receivers.
Note. — Reported in 301 N. E. 2d 641 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9737490. Public record. Not legal advice.