Durham v. Harbin
530 So. 2d 208, 1988 WL 92337 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For contracts involving the sale of land, the Statute of Frauds generally requires a written agreement subscribed by the party to be charged, with narrow exceptions for part performance (requiring both payment and possession) or inherent fraud operating from the inception of the transaction, but typically not for judicial admissions or promissory estoppel.
Facts:
- Anthony and Sheila Durham and Frank and Angela Harbin had an alleged oral agreement for Frank Harbin to sell a subdivision lot to the Durhams for $7,600.
- The Durhams paid $7,600 to the Harbins for the lot.
- Frank Harbin refused the Durhams' repeated requests to convey the lot.
- The Durhams never took possession of the lot.
- Angela Harbin, without Frank Harbin's knowledge or consent, typed a letter on Harbin Construction Company letterhead to the Durhams, outlining terms for the lot purchase, with Frank Harbin's name typed at the foot and a blank space for his signature, which he never signed.
- Angela Harbin subsequently signed and sent a second letter to the Durhams, also on company letterhead, indicating that the prior agreement had been modified, the money applied to a collateral sale of another property due to financing issues, and the remaining balance refunded to the Durhams.
- The Durhams accepted the refund of the remaining balance mentioned in Angela Harbin's second letter.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony and Sheila Durham sued Frank and Angela Harbin in a trial court for the breach of an alleged agreement to sell land.
- The Harbins defended the refusal to convey the property on the basis of the Statute of Frauds.
- The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the Harbins, ruling that the alleged agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
- The Durhams appealed the trial court's summary judgment.
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 party's payment of the purchase price for land, coupled with unsigned letters or alleged judicial admissions of a contract, satisfy the Statute of Frauds or estop the seller from asserting its defense, when the buyer never took possession of the property and there is no evidence of inherent fraud?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a party's payment for land and the presence of unsigned letters or alleged judicial admissions do not satisfy the Statute of Frauds or estop the seller from asserting its defense if the buyer never took possession and there's no inherent fraud. The court held that neither of Angela Harbin's letters satisfied the 'writing' requirement of the Statute of Frauds. The first letter, although typewritten with Frank Harbin's name, was not actually signed by him, and his typed name or the letterhead did not suffice as a signature because there was no intent to authenticate, especially since he had no knowledge or consent regarding its production. Furthermore, Angela Harbin lacked the required written authorization to sign as Frank's agent for a land sale contract. The second letter, signed by Angela, was not signed by the party to be charged (Frank Harbin), and also described terms (a modified agreement and a refund accepted by the Durhams) substantially different from the alleged contract. The court also rejected the Durhams' argument that the Harbins were estopped from asserting the Statute of Frauds. Citing Darby v. Johnson, the court reaffirmed that the only exceptions to the Statute of Frauds for land sales contracts are part performance (requiring both payment of the purchase price and the buyer being put into possession of the land by the seller) or inherent fraud (when the breaching party procured the money with no intent to perform the oral agreement from the beginning). The court explicitly rejected exceptions based on judicial admissions for land sales (outside of UCC goods sales) and promissory estoppel, emphasizing the Darby ruling's control over ambiguous language in Dean v. Myers. The evidence in this case indicated an amicable agreement gone awry, not inherent fraud, and the Durhams never took possession of the property.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the strict application of Alabama's Statute of Frauds for land sale contracts, particularly in its rejection of expanded exceptions. It clarifies that merely having paid the purchase price is insufficient for the part performance exception; actual possession of the land by the buyer is also a prerequisite. By firmly rejecting judicial admission and promissory estoppel as general exceptions for land sales, the court establishes a high bar for enforcing oral real estate agreements, thus promoting certainty in land transactions and limiting opportunities for perjury. Future cases will continue to rely on the narrow exceptions of part performance (payment and possession) and inherent fraud for oral land contracts.
