In Venable v. Harmon (1965) 233 Cal. App. 2d 297, the buyers executed a land sales contract and took possession of the property, agreeing to make monthly payments. After the buyers paid a set amount of the purchase price, the parties were to complete the sale and convey the property. The buyers breached and the sellers sued. The appellate court concluded that the sellers were limited to a foreclosure remedy by section 580b. "It does appear to be well settled that '. . . a contract for the sale of land in return for installment payments, title to be retained by the vendor until all or a large part of the purchase price is paid, serves the function of a security device, similar to a mortgage. . . .' Although there seems to be no clear-cut test for determining when an earnest money contract becomes a security device, the test should be one of intent, which may be evidenced by such factors as the length of time the contract is to run, change in possession of the property, the number of installments to be made under the contract, the per cent payable under the contract contrasted to other financing methods which may be involved. Upon the execution of the contract in question, the vendees were to take possession of the property and monthly payments of $ 575 were to be made by the vendees to the vendors. $ 145 of this monthly payment was to be applied to the principal amount of $ 10,000 and when $ 10,000 had been accumulated, the parties would enter into an escrow and complete the sale. Thus, it appears the parties intended in fact that this instrument would operate as a security device." ( Venable, supra, 233 Cal. App. 2d at pp. 300-301.)