Connection lost
Server error
SLONE v. CALHOUN Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A buyer defaulted on an installment land contract and vacated the property. The court held that the seller’s remedy was not forfeiture of the buyer’s payments and repossession, but rather a judicial foreclosure sale, treating the land contract as a mortgage.
Legal Significance: This case reaffirms the Kentucky Supreme Court’s precedent in Sebastian v. Floyd, holding that forfeiture clauses in installment land contracts are unenforceable. The seller’s exclusive remedy upon the buyer’s default is a judicial sale of the property to protect the buyer’s equitable interest.
SLONE v. CALHOUN Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
In 2005, Rosa Lea Slone (Buyer) entered into an installment land contract with Michael Calhoun (Seller) to purchase a lot and a mobile home for monthly payments of $313. Slone was also responsible for taxes and insurance. In January 2009, Calhoun mistakenly executed a second land contract for the same property with a third party, Jerry Sumner, though this error was later corrected. In May 2009, after making payments for nearly four years, Slone informed Calhoun she could no longer afford the payments and vacated the property. Slone later sued Calhoun for breach of contract. The trial court, after a bench trial, found that Slone had voluntarily terminated the contract. It enforced the contract’s forfeiture clause, ruling that Slone forfeited her interest in the property and all payments made. Slone appealed the dismissal of her complaint.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is a forfeiture clause in an installment land sale contract, which permits the seller to retain all payments made and recover the property upon the buyer’s default, enforceable under Kentucky law?
No. The forfeiture clause is unenforceable. The court reversed the trial court’s Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is a forfeiture clause in an installment land sale contract, which permits the seller to retain all payments made and recover the property upon the buyer’s default, enforceable under Kentucky law?
Conclusion
This case serves as a strong affirmation of the modern property law Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud e
Legal Rule
Under Kentucky law, a forfeiture provision in an installment land sale contract Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure d
Legal Analysis
The Court of Appeals based its decision entirely on the precedent set Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In Kentucky, forfeiture clauses in installment land contracts are invalid and