My two hundred. Finally, if you are wondering, personally, I would never recommend entering into a land contract, either as a seller or as a buyer. There are too many risks and uncertainties. For leasing contracts or loans, everyone, including the courts, knows where the parties are. If traditional financing is not an option, I think seller financing in the form of a standard note and mortgage is better than a land contract. I can`t have it both ways. The format of a “rent-to-buy” is often ambiguous and puts the owner in a hybrid role of owner and seller. Apparently, Rainbow`s development company designed an agreement that was a combination of lease and land contract. He wanted the document to be classified as a land contract so that he would not have the responsibility of an owner.
At the same time, the developer wanted the benefit of a lease for the first few years, so that he could easily distribute the buyer if he or she did not pay. Parties entering into such agreements should be cautious about how their contract is characterised. Both the format and the content of the agreement should be useful in order to avoid confusion as to the rights and obligations of the parties. Not often, the law will allow you to have your cake and eat it. Seller Annual accounting by contract by deed ” This form is used by the seller to provide an annual statement of payments made by the buyer for the contract of the deed. This form shall contain a basic description of the payments made and the remaining payments to be made under the agreement. Notification of the buyer`s intention to evacuate and hand over premises as part of the action contract “This form is advantageous in that it allows the seller to communicate a buyer`s intention to evacuate it. The seller would still retain his right to sue for breach of contract, but sometimes the contract of the buyer`s act is proof that nothing would come out of a legal action, even if the seller wins. For buyers who may fall into this risk category, a seller may benefit from the buyer`s use of this form. Carter and Lintner also claimed that Rainbow`s lease was approved by the Indiana Landlord-Tenant laws and the Marion County Health and Housing Code. As a result, their position was that this contract was not valid as a lease, as Rainbow did not provide Carter and Lintner with a safe, clean, and habitable home. See id.
It was also their position that this contract was not valid as a contract of sale because it allowed forfeiture in the first two years, regardless of the investments made by the couple in the property. . . .