If Richard and Jan Minard are in default on their installment land contract, which of the following is NOT true?

The statement that Richard and Jan Minard have the opportunity to redeem their equity is not true in the context of an installment land contract when they are in default. An installment land contract typically does not provide the same rights as a traditional mortgage, particularly regarding redemption rights.

In a traditional mortgage scenario, if the borrower defaults, they usually have a specified period during which they can redeem their property by paying off the owed amount. However, in an installment land contract, if the buyers are in default, the seller has the right to retain the property and may not be required to provide an opportunity for the buyers to redeem their equity. Instead, the sellers may be entitled to keep all payments made by the buyers as compensation for the default, often leading to total forfeiture of the payments made.

Regarding the other statements, they correctly reflect the nature of installment land contracts. Forfeiture of all payments made is a common consequence of default, and the seller's ability to sue for payments multiple times reflects their ongoing right to seek enforcement of the contract terms. While treating the loan as a mortgage for foreclosure purposes may sometimes apply legally, it does not negate the basic nature of the installment land contract, further highlighting the limited protections for buyers once default occurs.