Beaver v. Brumlow
231 P.3d 628 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral contract for the sale of land, which is otherwise unenforceable under the statute of frauds, may be enforced through specific performance under the doctrine of part performance. A court may supply a reasonable price term (fair market value) if the parties' intent to contract is clear and the buyer has taken possession and made substantial, permanent improvements to the property in reliance on the agreement.
Facts:
- Michael Brumlow worked for Warren and Betty Beaver's horse transportation business for approximately ten years.
- In 2001, the Beavers verbally agreed to sell the Brumlows a specific portion of their property for a home site, and the parties walked the boundaries of the parcel.
- With the Beavers' consent, the Brumlows took possession of the land.
- In reliance on the agreement, the Brumlows cashed in their retirement accounts, purchased a double-wide home, and moved it onto the property.
- The Brumlows spent approximately $85,000 on substantial improvements, including pouring a concrete foundation, building a deck, and installing electricity, water, and septic systems.
- Warren Beaver assisted the Brumlows by signing applications required by the local village for the placement of the home and the installation of the septic system.
- The Brumlows repeatedly asked to formalize the agreement, but the Beavers delayed, responding, 'We will work it out.'
- In 2004, after Michael Brumlow resigned to work for a competitor, the Beavers became angry and reneged on their promise to sell the land.
Procedural Posture:
- Warren and Betty Beaver (Sellers) filed a suit for ejectment against Michael and Karen Brumlow (Buyers) in the trial court, alleging a violation of a rental agreement.
- The Brumlows filed counterclaims for breach of contract, asserting their occupancy was pursuant to an oral agreement to purchase the property.
- The Beavers raised the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense to the counterclaims.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the Brumlows, concluding an enforceable oral contract existed and that their part performance removed it from the statute of frauds.
- The trial court ordered specific performance, requiring the Beavers to sell the property to the Brumlows at its appraised fair market value of $10,000.
- The Beavers (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, where the Brumlows were the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of part performance permit the specific enforcement of an oral contract for the sale of land when the buyers have taken possession and made substantial improvements in reliance on the agreement, even though essential terms like price and time of performance were not explicitly agreed upon?
Opinions:
Majority - Vigil, Judge.
Yes. The doctrine of part performance permits specific enforcement of the oral contract. Where a party to an oral contract for the sale of land has performed to such an extent as to make it inequitable to deny the agreement's effect, a court of equity may remove the contract from the statute of frauds. Here, the Brumlows' possession of the land and their expenditure of $85,000 on substantial, permanent improvements, all with the Beavers' knowledge and consent, constitutes sufficient part performance. Their actions are 'unequivocally referable' to a sale agreement, as an outsider would naturally conclude a contract for sale existed. Furthermore, the absence of a set price is not fatal; when the parties' intent to contract is clear and there has been significant part performance, the law will imply a term for a reasonable price, which is the fair market value. Because land is unique, specific performance is the appropriate remedy.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies New Mexico's application of the part performance exception to the statute of frauds, particularly the 'unequivocally referable' standard. The court rejects a rigid interpretation, holding that performance need not be explainable only by the alleged contract, but rather must lead a reasonable outsider to conclude such a contract exists. By allowing a court of equity to supply a reasonable price term where one was omitted, the opinion reinforces the principle that the statute of frauds should prevent fraud, not facilitate it. This precedent strengthens the position of parties who rely on oral agreements for land by preventing sellers from using minor contractual omissions to repudiate a deal after the buyer has performed substantially.
Unlock the full brief for Beaver v. Brumlow