Cain v. Cross
293 Ill. App. 3d 255, 687 N.E.2d 1141, 227 Ill. Dec. 659 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The equitable doctrine of part performance cannot be invoked to sustain an action at law for money damages for breach of an oral contract for the sale of land. For the doctrine to apply in an equitable action, performance must consist of more than just the payment of purchase money; it generally requires the buyer to have taken possession and made valuable improvements.
Facts:
- Gerald Cain and Ronald and Robert Cross (Cross) entered into an oral agreement for Cain to purchase 806 acres of land, known as Cross Farms, for $1,000 per acre.
- The agreement stipulated that Cain would pay $10,000 in earnest money, followed by $400,000 upon delivery of possession, and the balance at a later date.
- Cain made the $10,000 earnest money payment to Cross as agreed.
- Cain also arranged the necessary financing for the remainder of the purchase price.
- Cross subsequently refused to convey the property to Cain.
- Cross then breached the oral agreement by conveying the property to a third party.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Gerald Cain filed a complaint for breach of contract against defendants Ronald and Robert Cross in the circuit court, seeking money damages.
- The defendants, Cross, filed a motion to dismiss Cain's complaint, arguing the claim was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds because the alleged contract for the sale of land was not in writing.
- The circuit court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.
- Plaintiff Cain appealed the circuit court's dismissal to the appellate court.
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 equitable doctrine of part performance permit a plaintiff to pursue an action at law for money damages for the breach of an oral contract for the sale of land, where the only performance was the payment of earnest money?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Maag
No. The doctrine of part performance is an equitable remedy and does not apply to actions at law seeking monetary damages for breach of an oral contract for the sale of land. The court reasoned that the Statute of Frauds requires contracts for the sale of land to be in writing to be enforceable. While the equitable doctrine of part performance can serve as an exception to this rule, it is not applicable in actions at law for money damages. The court clarified that the unification of the court system did not abolish the substantive distinctions between law and equity. Furthermore, even if the doctrine were applicable, Cain's actions were insufficient. Citing precedent like Koenig v. Dohm, the court reiterated that for an oral contract for the sale of land, the mere payment of purchase money, without the buyer taking possession or making improvements, is not sufficient part performance to take the contract out of the Statute of Frauds.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional and strict distinction between legal and equitable remedies, even within a unified court system. It clarifies that equitable doctrines like part performance are not transferable to actions at law seeking money damages. The ruling serves as a stark reminder of the high threshold required to overcome the Statute of Frauds in real estate transactions, emphasizing that a mere down payment is insufficient. For future cases, this holding solidifies that a party to a breached oral land contract cannot use the part-performance doctrine to sue for damages; their only potential recourse under that doctrine would be an equitable action for specific performance, and only if they meet the stringent requirements of possession and improvements.
