Representative Image (AI-generated)
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. 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. A land purchase can stretch across years, with missed payments, revised agreements and disputes over who has the right to sell the property.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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 stressed that the Clarks had paid a significant amount towards the purchase since early 2015 and that equity generally seeks to prevent harsh forfeitures. 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.
He accepted the figure but again requested a signed document. 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. In its decision in Sandra Thomas v. They later defaulted a second time. The court record showed that the paperwork was not provided. The Clarks sued the Thomases, seeking enforcement of the agreement and the right to complete the purchase. 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. The court concluded that the trial judge had not clearly erred in ordering specific performance.