A Warning Against Lease Purchase Deals in Alabama: McCain v. Sneed (2025)
- Gregory Stanley
- Apr 25
- 2 min read
The Alabama Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in McCain v. Sneed is a warning to real estate investors and sellers thinking about lease purchase arrangements. What began as a seemingly standard rent to own deal evolved into a multi-year litigation battle that ended with the seller being ordered to convey title—on terms dictated by the court rather than the contract’s original intent. The case illustrates how legally volatile and judicially disfavored these hybrid arrangements have become in Alabama.
Breach, Unjust Enrichment, and Promissory Fraud
At the heart of the dispute was a familiar structure: monthly rent, annual lump sum payments, and an option to purchase. When the relationship deteriorated, the seller couldn't file a simple eviction, they had to file an ejectment action, believing the buyers had defaulted. The buyers countered with claims of breach, unjust enrichment, and promissory fraud. The Calhoun County Circuit Court ordered the seller to satisfy her mortgage and deliver clear title. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed nearly all of the trial court’s findings.
The Seller Still Lost
The Court did reverse one aspect of the judgment: The trial court’s decision to credit some rent toward the purchase price was overturned. Yet even this partial correction did little to change the overall outcome. The seller still lost possession, lost control of the sale terms, and was compelled to pay off their mortgage and convey the property with cklear title after years of litigation.
Courts want to Protect the Buyer
The broader lesson: Lease purchase agreements create a dangerous gray zone if the occupant believes they are “buying,” but the seller wants to treat them as tenants. Courts are acutely aware of the potential for abuse by the seller in these arrangements, and their instinct is to protect the occupant rather than the investor. Once a dispute arises, the seller cannot rely on the speed or simplicity of landlord tenant remedies. Instead, the case becomes a hybrid contract dispute, an equitable proceeding, and a property rights battle in a higher court in Alabama.
McCain v. Sneed demonstrates that even when the contract is clear, even when the seller believes the buyer has defaulted, and even when the seller ultimately prevails on a point of interpretation, the overall litigation risk remains enormous. A lease purchase deal can end with a forced conveyance, unexpected credits, judicial rewriting of expectations, and years of costly litigation--and the buyer may qualify for free legal aid!
Don’t take legal advice from the internet, and know that multiple lawsuits and investigations have been filed against OpenAI and ChatGPT based on issues such as incorrect legal advice including plaintiff’s Nippon Life Insurance, Florida’s Attorney General, and even Kash Patel v. The Atlantic.
Comments