Canter v. Garvin
2021 Ohio 99 (2021)
Rule of Law:
To satisfy the Statute of Frauds, a writing must contain all essential terms of the contract, including consideration; furthermore, the doctrine of part performance removes an agreement from the Statute of Frauds only if the plaintiff's acts are unequivocally and exclusively referable to the alleged agreement and cannot be compensated by monetary damages.
Facts:
- Clay Canter and John L. Garvin maintained a close friendship beginning in 1986, and in 2003, Canter began renting pasture and a barn from Garvin under a verbal agreement.
- In April 2009, Garvin showed Canter a document stating Canter had the right to purchase approximately 100 acres of the farm for $200,000 upon Garvin's death.
- Canter reviewed the document but did not sign it, and Garvin retained possession of the sole copy.
- During this meeting, the parties verbally agreed that Canter would perform specific work, such as removing thorn trees and rerouting a creek, as part of the deal.
- Following this interaction, Canter performed extensive work on the farm using heavy machinery over several years without direct monetary compensation.
- Garvin died in February 2016, and no written document evidencing the sale or option contract could be found in his records.
- Canter attempted to exercise the option to purchase the farm from the Trust, but the Co-Trustees refused to convey the land.
Procedural Posture:
- Canter filed a complaint against the Co-Trustees in the Union County Common Pleas Court seeking specific performance of the contract.
- The Co-Trustees filed an answer and counterclaims for eviction and damages.
- The magistrate conducted a bench trial.
- The magistrate issued a decision recommending specific performance in favor of Canter.
- The Co-Trustees filed objections to the magistrate's decision.
- The trial court overruled the objections and ordered the Co-Trustees to convey the land to Canter.
- The Co-Trustees appealed the judgment to the Third Appellate District.
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 a lost written option contract satisfy the Statute of Frauds when it omits the agreed-upon consideration, and does the doctrine of part performance enforce the oral agreement based on improvements made to the land?
Opinions:
Majority - Preston
No, the writing failed to satisfy the Statute of Frauds because it lacked the essential term of consideration, and the doctrine of part performance does not apply because Canter's actions were not exclusively referable to the alleged contract. The court reasoned that while a lost writing can be proven by parol evidence, the testimony established that the work Canter performed was an essential term of the agreement (consideration). Since the writing described by witnesses did not mention this work, it failed to contain all essential terms required by the Statute of Frauds. regarding the alternative argument of part performance, the court found that Canter's improvements to the land were not "unequivocal acts" pointing solely to a contract. His work could reasonably be explained by his existing status as a tenant (improving the land for his cattle), his long history of doing gratuitous favors for Garvin out of friendship, or Garvin's prior offers to pay cash for the work. Additionally, Canter never paid any portion of the purchase price nor took exclusive possession beyond his existing tenancy.
Concurring - Willamowski
No, the agreement is unenforceable because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that monetary damages would be inadequate to restore the parties to the status quo. The concurring opinion emphasized the fourth element of the part performance doctrine: impossibility or impracticability of returning the parties to their pre-contract positions. Because Canter could be compensated monetarily for the labor and machine time he invested in the farm, equity does not require specific performance to prevent fraud, rendering the part performance exception inapplicable regardless of whether the acts were referable to the contract.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict application of the Statute of Frauds in real estate transactions, particularly regarding 'essential terms.' Even if a writing exists, if it omits the 'consideration' (what is being exchanged for the land), it is legally insufficient. Furthermore, the court clarifies the high bar for the 'part performance' exception in Ohio. Merely doing substantial work on a property is not enough to prove a contract exists if that work can be explained by other factors, such as tenancy or friendship. The acts must be 'exclusively referable' to the contract. This prevents plaintiffs from retroactively claiming that favors done for friends or landlords were actually payments toward purchasing real estate.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Canter v. Garvin (2021)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"