Sindlinger v. Paul
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLevin, J.
The question presented is whether Douglas and Arlene Sindlinger, land contract vendors, could accelerate the principal balance owed by Robert and Karen Paul, land contract vendees, after the Pauls had tendered payment of delinquent installments before the Sindlingers had exercised their option under the land contract to declare the entire unpaid balance due and payable.
The land contract provided that the entire balance could be accelerated, at the option of the vendors, if the default continued for forty-five days or more. The Court of Appeals held that once forty-five days has elapsed, the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Lee v. O'QuinnSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
- Clark v. PaddockIdaho Supreme Court · 1913
- Trinity County Bank v. HaasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Gunby v. IngramWashington Supreme Court · 1910
- Dumas v. HelmMichigan Court of Appeals · 1968
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kent v. PipiaMichigan Court of Appeals · 1990
- Kent v. PipiaMichigan Court of Appeals · 1990