Jolley v. Clay
1982 Ida. LEXIS 256, 646 P.2d 413, 103 Idaho 171 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral contract for the sale of real property, which is normally unenforceable under the statute of frauds, may be specifically enforced under the equitable doctrine of part performance if the buyers have taken possession of the property, made substantial and valuable improvements, and paid a significant portion of the purchase price in reliance on the agreement.
Facts:
- In January 1964, Dahlia Clay orally agreed to sell a 20-acre parcel of land to her daughter, Marijane Jolley, and son-in-law, Lee Jolley, for $10,000.
- The terms of the oral agreement gave the Jolleys immediate possession and required them to pay property taxes, with payments on the principal to be made periodically without a fixed schedule.
- Pursuant to the agreement, the Jolleys, who had previously been tenants, took possession of the property as owners.
- Between April 1965 and May 1968, and at other various times, the Jolleys made payments to Dahlia Clay totaling $5,500.
- Over the next 15 years, the Jolleys made valuable improvements to the property, including fencing the land, drilling a well, remodeling the house and barn, and building corrals, with an approximate value of $10,000.
- The Jolleys paid the ad valorem property taxes from 1964 to 1975.
- Dahlia Clay died on September 9, 1976, without having executed a written deed conveying the property to the Jolleys.
- After Dahlia Clay's death, her son and personal representative, J. R. Clay, refused the Jolleys' tender of the remaining $4,500 balance and refused to convey the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Marijane and Lee Jolley sued J. R. Clay, in his capacity as personal representative of the Estate of Dahlia Clay, in an Idaho district court (the trial court) to compel specific performance of an oral land sale contract.
- The case was tried before a judge without a jury.
- At the close of the Jolleys' case, Clay's counsel moved for an involuntary dismissal.
- The trial court denied the motion for involuntary dismissal, and Clay's counsel rested without presenting any evidence.
- The trial court entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in favor of the Jolleys and entered a judgment ordering specific performance.
- J. R. Clay, as personal representative (appellant), appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Idaho.
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 permit the specific enforcement of an oral contract for the sale of real property when the buyers have taken possession, made substantial improvements, and paid a significant portion of the purchase price?
Opinions:
Majority - Bistline, Justice
Yes. The doctrine of part performance permits the specific enforcement of the oral contract. The statute of frauds generally requires contracts for the sale of real property to be in writing, but Idaho Code § 9-504 creates an exception allowing courts to compel specific performance in cases of part performance. The evidence clearly shows that the Jolleys' actions were sufficient to invoke this doctrine. They took possession of the property as owners for fifteen years, made substantial improvements valued at approximately the full purchase price, paid the property taxes, and paid over half of the purchase price to Dahlia Clay. This conduct unequivocally demonstrates reliance on the oral contract, making it inequitable to allow the estate to use the statute of frauds as a defense. Furthermore, the trial court correctly admitted testimony from third-party witnesses regarding Dahlia Clay's out-of-court statements about the sale. Such statements from a deceased predecessor in interest are admissible as non-hearsay admissions against her successor in interest (her estate) with whom she is in privity.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strength of the part performance doctrine as a significant equitable exception to the statute of frauds for real estate contracts. It clarifies that a combination of possession, substantial improvements, and partial payment constitutes compelling evidence of an oral agreement, preventing the statute from being used as an instrument of fraud. The decision also aligns Idaho's evidence law with the modern trend (similar to the Federal Rules of Evidence) by classifying admissions of a party's predecessor-in-interest as non-hearsay rather than as a hearsay exception. This provides a clearer evidentiary path for proving the terms of agreements involving a deceased party.
