Skendzel v. Marshall
Indiana Supreme Court
301 N.E.2d 641 (1973)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Charles and Agnes Marshall (defendants) entered an installment land contract to purchase real property from Mary Burkowski for $36,000, to be paid at fixed intervals. The contract included a liquidated-damages provision stating that if the Marshalls defaulted, they forfeited all money previously paid and the property. For several years, the Marshalls made sporadic prepayments totaling $21,000, always staying ahead of the contract’s payment schedule. However, the Marshalls then stopped making payments. By then, Burkowski had died. Josephine Skendzel and others (plaintiffs) had acquired Burkowski’s interest in the contract and sued the Marshalls, seeking possession of the land under the contract’s forfeiture provision. The trial court held for the Marshalls, finding the forfeiture provision had been waived by the acceptance of sporadic, off-schedule payments. The appeals court reversed, finding the forfeiture provision was enforceable. The Marshalls appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hunter, J.)
Concurrence (Prentice, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
