James W. and Laura L. Keith - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         
          inconsistent with the notion that security concerns may in fact             
          have motivated the transactional form chosen:  “GIA sells real              
          property to low-income families in Western Georgia near Columbus.           
          Because these families are poor and have little or no credit                
          history the properties are sold using a ‘Contract for Deed’”.               
          Hence, we hold that these instruments upon their execution                  
          effected a completed sale for Federal tax purposes.  Petitioners’           
          reliance on Hambrick v. Bedsole, 91 S.E.2d 205 (Ga. Ct. App.                
          1956), and on the voidability of their agreements, in support of            
          a contrary conclusion, is misplaced.                                        
               Hambrick v. Bedsole, supra at 208-209, involved a contract             
          under which title to property was not to pass and possession was            
          not to be delivered until the full, lump-sum purchase price was             
          paid.  The agreement did not provide for either a downpayment or            
          installment payments.  See id.  The court decided that the                  
          contract “was a mere executory agreement to sell and did not                
          constitute a sale”, on the grounds that the buyer “gained by the            
          contract neither title to, nor the right of possession of” the              
          subject property.  Id. at 209.  The situation in Hambrick v.                
          Bedsole, supra, thus bears almost no resemblance to that in the             
          instant case and cannot inform our analysis.                                
               As regards the voidability of the contracts for deed, we see           
          no material difference between the provisions on default here and           
          those contained in the agreement in Chilivis v. Tumlin Woods                






Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011