Part performance under Statute of Frauds
Brice v. Hrdlicka, 227 Or.App. 460, --- P.3d ----, 2009 WL 997141
(Or.App. Apr 15, 2009) (NO. 04CV0422MA, A132940)
One tenant in common would accommodate the other tenant’s desire
to obtain financing on the property. He would deed the property to
the other tenant, the loan would be obtained and then his one-half
interest would be deeded back to him. One time, the other tenant
refused to deed back the property. The legal defense was the
agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds because it
was not in writing.
Oregon's Statute of Frauds requires that certain types of
agreements, including those “for the sale of real property, or any
interest therein,” must be in writing, unless an exception
applies.The doctrine of part performance is one such exception.
Luckey et ux v. Deatsman, 217 Or. 628, 633, 343 P.2d 723 (1959).
Under that doctrine, a court may enforce an agreement that would
otherwise violate the Statute of Frauds if three requirements are
met. First, the party asserting part performance must provide
preponderating evidence of an agreement that is “clear, certain and
unambiguous in its terms.” Young v. Neill et al., 190 Or. 161, 166,
220 P.2d 89 (1950). Second, there must be evidence of conduct
“unequivocally and exclusively referable to the contract.” Strong v.
Hall, 253 Or. 61, 70, 453 P.2d 425 (1969). Finally, there must be
equitable grounds for enforcing the agreement, such as facts
justifying the avoidance of unjust enrichment or relief from fraud.
Luckey, 217 Or. at 633, 343 P.2d 723.
Whether a plaintiff partially performed an agreement so as to
remove it from the statute of frauds is a question of fact. Howland
v. Iron Fireman Mfg. Co., 188 Or. 230, 317, 322-23, 215 P.2d 380
(1950).
The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that part
performance had been proved and ordered the tenant in common
interest be returned to the plaintiff.