Satterfield v. Missouri Dental Ass'n
1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3332, 642 S.W.2d 110 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Statute of Frauds permits dismissal of a petition on the pleadings if the alleged oral contract falls within its requirements (e.g., not to be performed within one year) and the plaintiff fails to plead facts sufficient to remove the contract from the statute's operation.
Facts:
- Appellant was employed by the association as an executive secretary starting in 1944.
- Appellant and the association had an oral agreement that she would continue in her position until she retired.
- Appellant determined her retirement date to be April 1981 and informed the association of this decision.
- The association discharged Appellant from her employment on November 11, 1979.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant filed a petition in trial court seeking actual and exemplary damages for breach of contract and reinstatement to her former position.
- The association filed a motion to dismiss Appellant's petition.
- The trial court sustained the association's motion to dismiss, finding the cause of action barred by the Statute of Frauds.
- Appellant appealed the trial court's dismissal of her petition.
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 prevent a plaintiff from suing for breach of an oral employment agreement that was set by the plaintiff to last longer than one year, allowing for dismissal of the case on the pleadings if no exception to the statute is properly pleaded?
Opinions:
Majority - Clark, Presiding Judge
Yes, the Statute of Frauds prevents a plaintiff from suing for breach of an oral employment agreement that was set to last longer than one year, and such a case may be dismissed on the pleadings if the petition reveals an oral contract within the statute and no facts are pleaded to remove it from the statute's operation. The court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that the Statute of Frauds may be properly raised in a motion to dismiss when the petition alleges an unwritten contract that appears to fall within the statute's purview (e.g., a contract not to be performed within one year) and the plaintiff does not plead facts to take the contract out of the statute's operation. While an employment contract for an indefinite period may fall outside the Statute of Frauds because it could be performed within one year through termination, Appellant's petition explicitly stated she had determined her retirement date to be April 1981. This action transformed the agreement into one of definite duration, extending from November 1979 to April 1981, which clearly exceeded the one-year limitation of the Statute of Frauds. The court further rejected Appellant's argument that her partial performance (rendering services until termination) removed the contract from the statute, clarifying that partial performance does not convert to full performance and generally does not remove a contract not to be performed within one year from the statute when the action is for breach of the entire contract. Finally, the doctrine of equitable fraud, which allows enforcement of oral contracts in very unusual circumstances to prevent a grossly unjust wrong, was deemed inapplicable because Appellant pleaded no change in position, deep-seated wrong, or conduct akin to fraud.
Analysis:
This case clarifies crucial aspects of the Statute of Frauds' application, particularly in the context of employment contracts. It establishes that a plaintiff's own pleading, by specifying a definite term for an oral contract that exceeds one year, can bring the agreement squarely within the Statute of Frauds, making it unenforceable. The decision also reinforces the limited scope of exceptions like partial performance and equitable fraud, emphasizing that merely rendering services for a portion of an unwritten, long-term contract is insufficient to overcome the statute. This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for plaintiffs relying on oral agreements for long-term employment and provides a strong procedural tool for defendants seeking early dismissal of such claims.
