Kopp v. Reiter
146 Ill. 437 (1893)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An undelivered deed cannot satisfy the Statute of Frauds' writing requirement for a land sale contract unless it contains the essential terms of the contract or is executed in pursuance of a prior written memorandum signed by the party to be charged.
Facts:
- Mr. Reiter, without written or parol authority from his wife, Mrs. Reiter, entered into a written contract with Kopp to sell a lot owned solely by Mrs. Reiter.
- Mrs. Reiter did not sign the contract, was not consulted about it beforehand, and was opposed to the sale.
- Kopp paid $250 in earnest money to Cronkrite & Co., who were not authorized agents of Mrs. Reiter.
- At her husband's later request, Mrs. Reiter reluctantly signed a warranty deed for the lot.
- The deed stated a consideration of $5000 but did not recite the specific terms of the contract between Mr. Reiter and Kopp, nor did it make any reference to that contract.
- The deed was never delivered to Kopp; it remained in Mr. Reiter's possession and was later recalled by Mrs. Reiter.
Procedural Posture:
- Kopp sued Mrs. Reiter in the Circuit Court seeking specific performance of the land sale contract.
- The cause was referred to a Master, who found that Mrs. Reiter had not authorized the contract and that the undelivered deed was not a sufficient memorandum under the Statute of Frauds.
- The Circuit Court confirmed the Master's report and entered a decree against Kopp, denying specific performance.
- Kopp, as appellant, appealed the Circuit Court's decree to this court.
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 an undelivered warranty deed, signed by the property owner but silent as to the specific terms of a prior unauthorized sale contract, constitute a sufficient written memorandum to satisfy the Statute of Frauds?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Magruder
No. An undelivered deed, standing alone, is not a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the Statute of Frauds unless it contains the terms of the agreement or is executed in direct pursuance of a prior contract signed by the party to be charged. The Statute of Frauds requires a 'memorandum or note thereof,' referring to the contract itself. The deed in this case was a simple conveyance, silent as to the contract's terms, and was not executed with reference to the unauthorized agreement made by Mr. Reiter. Because there was no prior valid written contract signed by Mrs. Reiter that the deed could supplement, the deed itself fails to meet the statutory requirement. A deed not delivered is not, by its own force, a sufficient writing to meet the requirements of the statute.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the limited circumstances under which an undelivered deed can satisfy the Statute of Frauds. It establishes that the deed cannot be used in a vacuum; it must be connected to an underlying agreement memorialized in a writing that is also signed by the party to be charged. The decision reinforces the strict requirement that an agent's authority to sell land must be in writing. It narrows the potential for using subsequent, undelivered documents to cure defects in the initial formation of a land sale contract, particularly when the property owner never signed the initial agreement.
