A land purchase can stretch across years, with missed payments, revised agreements and disputes over who has the right to sell the property. In Arkansas, a couple who began paying for 111 acres in 2015 faced a legal battle after the seller refused to provide the signed paperwork needed to complete the purchase. Destin later testified that the couple had handed over a truck and six or seven cows under an earlier arrangement to bring their payments up to date. On November 4, 2026, the Arkansas Court of Appeals upheld their right to complete the sale, affirming a ruling that recognised their equitable interest in the land.In its decision in Sandra Thomas v. Destin and Jennifer Clark, case number CV-25-445, the court affirmed the Logan County Circuit Court’s order for specific performance. The opinion, available on Justia, also upheld an award of $17,500 in attorney’s fees and costs to the buyers, Destin and Jennifer Clark.
How the couple’s land purchase began
The dispute concerned 111 acres in Magazine, Arkansas, owned by George Wayne Thomas and his wife, Sandra Thomas. Destin Clark testified that he first discussed buying the property with George in 2015, when owner financing was presented as a possibility. Under the initial arrangement, the Clarks were to pay $2,700 a month, but they fell behind and were told to leave.After struggling to find another place to live, the couple asked the Thomases to let them restart the agreement. Destin told the court that they handed over a truck and six or seven cows to bring the outstanding balance up to date and agreed again to pay $2,700 each month. They later defaulted a second time.On March 3, 2020, the parties entered into a third agreement titled “Rent To Own Contract”. This time, the monthly payment was set at $1,900, with the outstanding balance listed as $103,852.91. The contract allowed the buyers to make advance payments towards part or all of the debt without a penalty. It also stated that ownership would remain with the sellers until the balance was paid.
Disagreement over the final payment
By 2021, the Thomases were urging the Clarks to clear the remaining debt. The couple wanted to buy property in Kentucky and planned to sell the Arkansas acreage to fund that purchase. In February 2022, they received an offer of $240,700 for the land.To move the transaction forward, the title company required a dated and signed payoff figure from the sellers. Destin asked Sandra for the amount in writing, but she said the Clarks could not sell the property without the Thomases’ express written permission.The couple received another offer in April 2022, this time for $250,000. Sandra told Destin that the payoff amount was $73,410 as of April 15. He accepted the figure but again requested a signed document. The court record showed that the paperwork was not provided.The payment dispute added to the conflict. The Clarks sent cashier’s checks for an instalment due on April 15, along with $440 in late fees, but the envelope arrived 46 days after the due date and was marked “Refused”. Sandra later issued a notice requiring the couple to leave, citing late payments and alleged failure to maintain the property.
Why the courts upheld the buyers’ rights
The Clarks sued the Thomases, seeking enforcement of the agreement and the right to complete the purchase. The circuit court found that the 2020 contract created an equitable mortgage and that the couple had acquired an equitable interest in the property. It also concluded that Sandra had breached the agreement by refusing to provide the signed payoff figure after the buyers had sought to make an early payment.On appeal, Sandra argued that the agreement was only an executory contract, meaning the Clarks had no equitable ownership before completing all its conditions. She also challenged the findings concerning late payments, the property’s condition and the attorney’s fees.The appeals court disagreed with her central argument. It noted that Arkansas law allows courts to consider how parties have acted while carrying out a land agreement, not just the wording of the document. It also stressed that the Clarks had paid a significant amount towards the purchase since early 2015 and that equity generally seeks to prevent harsh forfeitures.The court concluded that the trial judge had not clearly erred in ordering specific performance. Under that order, Sandra had to provide a signed payoff amount calculated from $73,410, with interest at six per cent annually from April 15, 2022. The Clarks were then required to arrange closing within 30 days of receiving it, while Sandra had to accept the final payment and execute the deed.
Appeals court leaves the order intact
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, including the $17,500 award for attorney’s fees and costs. It did not separately resolve every allegation about late payments or the property’s condition, finding those issues moot after upholding the order for specific performance.The ruling means the Clarks can proceed towards completing the purchase under the terms set by the circuit court. It also leaves in place the finding that their years of payments gave them an equitable interest in the 111 acres, despite the seller’s attempt to end the arrangement.
