Gleason v. Gleason
64 Ohio App. 3d 667, 582 N.E.2d 657 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of part performance may take an oral contract for the conveyance of an interest in land out of the Statute of Frauds when a party's unequivocal, detrimental acts, exclusively referable to the agreement, prevent fraud and make money damages an inadequate remedy, thus allowing specific performance.
Facts:
- In the fall of 1979, Murray Gleason, deceased, and appellant Hilda Gleason (Walter's parents) orally promised appellee Walter Gleason an undivided one-half interest in their ninety-acre family farm if Walter would maintain and pay related expenses for the property.
- Walter Gleason agreed to the terms of the agreement and began fulfilling his duties to maintain and care for the farm.
- Murray Gleason died in 1981, and following probate of his estate, Hilda Gleason became the sole owner of the property on January 29, 1982.
- At that time, Hilda Gleason reassured Walter Gleason that the agreement to transfer to him a one-half interest in the farm was still in effect.
- From 1979 through 1986, Walter Gleason fulfilled his duties pursuant to the agreement, expending approximately $27,250 for the maintenance and care of the farm, including paying taxes and insurance, growing tobacco, and making improvements like liming fields, clearing, and building fences.
- Walter Gleason also built a house on the farm, although the specific two and one-half acre tract on which it was built had already been deeded to him.
- On or about September 9, 1988, Hilda Gleason transferred the entire ninety-acre farm to appellant James Gleason, one of Walter's brothers.
- Walter Gleason claimed he was reassured that he would still receive his one-half interest in the farm, but on September 7, 1988, James Gleason, through his attorney, sent Walter Gleason a letter ordering him to vacate the farm.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 7, 1988, Walter Gleason filed a complaint in the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) against Hilda Gleason and James Gleason, seeking reimbursement for expenditures or specific performance of the oral promise, and demanded a jury trial.
- On November 22, 1988, Hilda Gleason and James Gleason (defendants) answered, denying the existence of an agreement, and filed a counterclaim seeking reasonable value for Walter Gleason’s use of the land, also demanding a jury trial on all issues.
- A four-day jury trial commenced on February 22, 1989, in the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Walter Gleason, awarding him a one-half interest in the farm.
- On April 5, 1989, a judge (a different judge, as the presiding judge died) entered judgment upon the jury verdict pursuant to Civ.R. 63(B).
- Hilda Gleason and James Gleason filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court overruled on May 30, 1989.
- On June 8, 1989, Hilda Gleason and James Gleason (appellants) filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals of Ohio.
- On March 6, 1990, the Court of Appeals dismissed the initial appeal because the appellants' counterclaim had not been ruled upon, meaning there was no final appealable order.
- On April 3, 1990, the trial court, by nunc pro tunc entry, dismissed the appellants' counterclaim.
- Hilda Gleason and James Gleason then filed a new notice of appeal, bringing the case before the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth 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 the doctrine of part performance render an oral agreement for an interest in real property enforceable despite the Statute of Frauds, and can a jury properly consider the equitable remedy of specific performance when a party sought and did not object to a jury trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephenson, Presiding Judge
Yes, the doctrine of part performance renders an oral agreement for an interest in real property enforceable despite the Statute of Frauds, and a jury can properly consider the equitable remedy of specific performance when a party sought and did not object to a jury trial. The court first addressed the appellants' argument that a jury should not have decided the equitable issue of specific performance. While generally specific performance is an equitable remedy to be decided by a court, R.C. 2311.04 and Civ.R. 39(C) permit a court to order any issue to be tried by a jury with the consent of both parties. Since appellants themselves demanded a jury trial on all issues and did not object to the jury considering specific performance, they are estopped from asserting error under the doctrine of invited error. The court further determined that specific performance was an appropriate remedy because contracts involving interests in land generally warrant specific enforcement due to the inherent inadequacy of monetary damages at law. The unique nature of land means that an action at law does not ordinarily afford an adequate remedy for refusal to convey real estate. Walter Gleason's alternative prayer for damages for expenditures did not negate the inadequacy of a legal remedy for the specific interest in the land itself. Regarding the Statute of Frauds (R.C. 1335.05), which requires land transfer agreements to be in writing, the court applied the doctrine of part performance as an equitable exception. This doctrine prevents injustice when a party's unequivocal acts, exclusively referable to the oral agreement, have changed their position to their detriment, making it impossible or impractical to restore the parties to their original position. The jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that Walter Gleason's actions—paying taxes and insurance, farming, clearing, liming, building fences, and constructing a house—were induced by the promise to convey a one-half interest in the farm. These actions were sufficient to satisfy the part performance test, taking the oral agreement out of the Statute of Frauds. Finally, the court found any error in allowing testimony about statements made by the deceased Murray Gleason to be harmless. The jury was explicitly instructed that Walter Gleason had no claim against Murray Gleason's estate and should only consider the agreement with Hilda Gleason, rendering Murray's alleged promises irrelevant to the case's outcome. Similarly, the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's allowance of certain cross-examination questions, noting that any error was harmless as no specific prejudice was demonstrated, and plain error is rarely recognized in civil cases.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the equitable exceptions to the Statute of Frauds, particularly the doctrine of part performance, in the context of oral agreements for the transfer of land. It clarifies that specific performance is considered the presumptive remedy for breach of land contracts due to the unique nature of real property, which inherently makes monetary damages an inadequate legal remedy. Furthermore, the decision highlights the application of the "invited error" doctrine, preventing litigants from raising objections on appeal to errors they induced or consented to at trial, especially concerning the role of a jury in deciding equitable issues. This ruling provides crucial guidance for cases involving verbal agreements for real estate where substantial, detrimental reliance has occurred, making it a valuable precedent for future contract and property disputes.
