Sprague v. Kimball
1913 Mass. LEXIS 993, 213 Mass. 380, 100 N.E. 622 (1913)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A grantor's oral promise to subject their remaining land to the same restrictions imposed on lots already sold is an agreement for the sale of an interest in land. As such, it is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds unless it is in writing.
Facts:
- Defendant Kimball created a development plan, dividing a tract of land into multiple lots for sale.
- Kimball sold several lots to the plaintiffs over a period of years.
- The deeds for the plaintiffs' lots all contained uniform restrictions, including building setbacks and prohibitions on commercial use, which were to last for twenty years.
- At the time of each sale, Kimball orally promised the plaintiffs that all remaining lots in the tract would be sold subject to the same restrictions for the mutual benefit of all buyers.
- The plaintiffs were induced to purchase and build upon their lots in reliance on Kimball's oral promise of a uniformly restricted neighborhood.
- The recorded development plan and the plaintiffs' deeds did not contain any written covenant by Kimball obligating her to restrict the land she retained.
- Years after the last sale to a plaintiff, Kimball entered into an agreement to sell a remaining lot to defendant Grossman without any of the previously promised restrictions.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed a bill in equity in the trial court.
- The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent defendant Kimball from conveying a lot to defendant Grossman without the agreed-upon restrictions.
- The trial court found that Kimball had made an oral promise to impose the restrictions as alleged.
- The trial court entered a decree in favor of the plaintiffs, granting the injunction.
- Defendant Kimball appealed the trial court's decree to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
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, which requires contracts concerning an interest in land to be in writing, prevent the enforcement of a grantor's oral promise to impose uniform building restrictions on their remaining lots, even when grantees purchased their own lots in reliance on that promise?
Opinions:
Majority - Braley, J.
Yes. The Statute of Frauds bars the enforcement of the grantor's oral promise. An agreement to impose restrictions on the use of land creates an equitable easement or servitude, which constitutes an interest in land. Under the Statute of Frauds, any agreement for the sale of an interest in land, whether legal or equitable, is unenforceable unless evidenced by a sufficient written instrument. Here, the court found that Kimball's promise to restrict her remaining land rested entirely on an oral agreement. The plaintiffs' argument that their purchase and improvement of their own lots constitutes part performance sufficient to overcome the statute fails. The doctrine of part performance requires actions related to the land that is the subject of the oral agreement (Kimball's remaining lot), not actions taken on the plaintiffs' own, separate properties. Mere non-performance of an oral contract, without a relationship of trust and confidence, does not constitute the kind of fraud that allows a court of equity to disregard the statute.
Analysis:
This decision strictly applies the Statute of Frauds to promises creating equitable servitudes, confirming that such promises create an interest in land requiring a writing. It significantly clarifies the doctrine of part performance, establishing that actions taken by a promisee on their own property, even in reliance on an oral agreement concerning the promisor's land, are insufficient to take the agreement out of the statute. The case serves as a strong precedent for developers and purchasers, emphasizing that for a common scheme of restrictions to be binding on a developer's retained land, the obligation must be expressly stated in a recorded plat or in the deeds. It underscores the risk buyers take when relying on oral assurances regarding land use.
