Hurtubise v. McPherson
2011 Mass. App. LEXIS 1129, 951 N.E.2d 994, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 186 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral agreement for the conveyance of land, which would normally be unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, may be specifically enforced if one party has reasonably relied on the agreement to their substantial detriment and the other party has silently acquiesced to that reliance.
Facts:
- Robert J. Hurtubise and Scott B. McPherson, owners of adjoining land tracts, entered into an oral agreement to exchange parcels of land.
- The purpose of the land swap was to allow Hurtubise to construct a new storage shed that would comply with local zoning setback requirements.
- Relying on this handshake agreement, Hurtubise obtained a building permit and proceeded with construction.
- Over seven to eight weeks, Hurtubise constructed a 300-by-thirty-foot storage shed at a cost of $39,690, which encroached approximately ten feet onto McPherson's property.
- During the entire construction period, McPherson observed the work and did not object to the location of the new building.
- After the building was complete, McPherson refused to complete the land swap and instead demanded $250,000 from Hurtubise.
Procedural Posture:
- Hurtubise filed a complaint in Superior Court seeking specific performance of the oral agreement.
- McPherson raised the Statute of Frauds as an affirmative defense and asserted numerous counterclaims.
- After a two-day bench trial, the Superior Court judge found in favor of Hurtubise, ordered specific performance of the land swap, and found for Hurtubise on all counterclaims.
- McPherson (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts, and Hurtubise is the appellee.
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 Statute of Frauds bar the specific enforcement of an oral agreement to exchange land where the party seeking enforcement has, in reasonable reliance on the agreement, constructed a substantial building on the other party's land with that party's knowledge and silent acquiescence?
Opinions:
Majority - Sikora, J.
No. The Statute of Frauds does not bar enforcement because the doctrine of equitable estoppel applies. An oral agreement for the conveyance of land may be specifically enforced if the party seeking enforcement, in reasonable reliance on the contract and the continuing assent of the other party, has so changed his position that injustice can be avoided only by specific enforcement. Here, Hurtubise reasonably relied on McPherson's oral promise and incurred substantial expense ($39,690) to build a permanent structure. McPherson's silent acquiescence throughout the construction period, knowing that Hurtubise was relying on their agreement, estops him from asserting the Statute of Frauds as a defense. Furthermore, the agreement was not too indefinite for enforcement because the parties' intentions and the subject matter could be ascertained with reasonable certainty from the circumstances, including the visible footprint of the new building.
Analysis:
This case affirms the modern judicial trend of applying equitable principles to prevent the Statute of Frauds from being used as an instrument of fraud or injustice. The court's decision emphasizes that substantial, observable detrimental reliance, coupled with the other party's silent acquiescence, can overcome the statute's formal writing requirement. It lowers the bar for definiteness in oral land contracts, allowing courts to enforce agreements where the parties' core intent is clear, even if specific boundaries were not precisely defined. This precedent strengthens the position of parties who act in good faith on oral promises concerning land, particularly when their actions are visible and unopposed by the promisor.
Unlock the full brief for Hurtubise v. McPherson