Shaughnessy v. Eidsmo
23 N.W.2d 362 (1946)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral contract for the sale of land is enforceable under the part performance exception to the Statute of Frauds if the buyer takes possession of the property and makes partial payment in reliance on the agreement. These acts must be unequivocally referable to the vendor-vendee relationship, and proof of irreparable injury is no longer required.
Facts:
- On April 5, 1943, Mark and Georgette Shaughnessy entered into an oral agreement with Bernt Eidsmo to lease a house for one year, beginning May 1, 1943.
- The agreement included an option for the Shaughnessys to purchase the property at the end of the lease term for a price between $4,750 and $5,000.
- Under the option terms, the total rent paid during the lease ($570) would be credited toward the purchase price.
- The Shaughnessys took possession on May 1, 1943, and paid the full year's rent.
- At and before the end of the lease term, the Shaughnessys notified Eidsmo of their intent to exercise the purchase option.
- Eidsmo repeatedly deferred creating a written contract, telling the Shaughnessys that his "word was good" and they should not worry.
- After the one-year lease term expired, the Shaughnessys remained in possession of the property and continued to make payments, which they considered payments on the purchase price.
Procedural Posture:
- The Shaughnessys sued Bernt Eidsmo in a Minnesota trial court, seeking specific performance of the oral agreement to sell the property.
- The trial court found in favor of the Shaughnessys, decreeing that they were entitled to a contract for deed from Eidsmo.
- Eidsmo filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Eidsmo, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order denying his motion for a new trial to the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
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 a party's partial performance of an oral contract for the sale of land, specifically by retaining possession and making partial payments unequivocally referable to the sale, make the contract enforceable under an exception to the statute of frauds without requiring additional proof of irreparable injury or fraud?
Opinions:
Majority - Matson, Justice.
Yes, a party's partial performance makes an oral contract for the sale of land enforceable without needing to prove irreparable injury. The court held that once the Shaughnessys exercised their oral option to purchase, a new oral contract for the sale of land was formed. While such contracts are normally barred by the Statute of Frauds, the doctrine of part performance can remove that bar. The court explicitly overruled its prior precedent requiring a showing of irreparable injury or fraud (the 'fraud theory') and adopted the 'unequivocal reference' test from the Restatement of Contracts. Under this rule, taking possession of the property and making part payment are sufficient to render the contract enforceable, provided these acts are unequivocally referable to a vendor-vendee relationship. Here, the Shaughnessys' continued possession after the lease expired, their continued payments, and Eidsmo's assurances that his word was good were all consistent with a purchase agreement, not a continuing tenancy, thus satisfying the test and warranting specific performance of the oral contract.
Analysis:
This decision significantly altered Minnesota's application of the part performance doctrine to the Statute of Frauds for real estate contracts. By expressly overruling Brown v. Hoag and adopting the Restatement's 'unequivocal reference' test, the court abandoned the more stringent 'fraud theory,' which required proof of irreparable injury. This change lowers the threshold for enforcing oral land sale contracts, making it easier for parties who have acted in reliance on such a contract (by taking possession and paying) to obtain specific performance. The ruling aligns Minnesota with a majority of jurisdictions and simplifies the evidentiary burden on plaintiffs seeking to enforce such agreements.
Unlock the full brief for Shaughnessy v. Eidsmo