Connection lost
Server error
ZAMAN v. FELTON 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 homeowner facing foreclosure sold her property but retained a lease and repurchase option. The New Jersey Supreme Court adopted a new multi-factor test to determine if such a sale-leaseback transaction is actually a disguised loan, known as an equitable mortgage, and remanded for reconsideration.
Legal Significance: This case formally adopts the eight-factor test from O’Brien v. Cleveland as the standard in New Jersey for determining whether a deed absolute on its face should be re-characterized as an equitable mortgage, prioritizing the transaction’s substance over its form.
ZAMAN v. FELTON 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
Defendant Barbara Felton, facing foreclosure on her uninhabitable home, entered into a transaction with plaintiff Tahir Zaman, a licensed real estate agent acting on his own behalf. On June 16, 2007, they executed a standard contract for the sale of the property for $200,000. At the closing a week later, where neither party had legal counsel, they executed two additional agreements: a lease allowing Felton to remain on the property for $1,000 per month, and an option for Felton to repurchase the property within three months for $237,000. Zaman paid off Felton’s existing mortgage and other liens, giving her the remaining balance of approximately $86,000. Felton remained on the property for over a year without paying rent and did not exercise her repurchase option. Zaman sued for possession. Felton counterclaimed, arguing the entire transaction was not a sale but an equitable mortgage designed to function as a high-interest loan secured by her property’s deed. A jury found that Felton had knowingly agreed to sell the property. The trial court, relying on this finding, rejected the equitable mortgage claim, and the Appellate Division affirmed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: What is the proper legal standard for a court to use when determining whether a transaction structured as a sale of real property with a contemporaneous lease-back and repurchase option should be treated as an equitable mortgage?
The Court reversed the lower courts’ rejection of the equitable mortgage claim 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 volu
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
What is the proper legal standard for a court to use when determining whether a transaction structured as a sale of real property with a contemporaneous lease-back and repurchase option should be treated as an equitable mortgage?
Conclusion
This decision establishes a definitive, multi-factor standard for the equitable mortgage doctrine 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
Legal Rule
To determine whether a transaction constitutes an equitable mortgage, a court must 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 pa
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on the equitable maxim that substance should prevail 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 qu
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Adopts the eight-factor test from O’Brien v. Cleveland as the New