Sullivan v. Porter
861 A.2d 625 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral contract for the sale of real estate may be removed from the Statute of Frauds and enforced under the doctrine of part performance if the party seeking enforcement proves by clear and convincing evidence: 1) the existence of a contract, 2) their partial performance of the contract, and 3) that their performance was induced by the other party's misrepresentations, which can include silent acquiescence.
Facts:
- In August 2000, Merval and Susan Porter orally offered to sell their farm property to Joan Sullivan and David Andrews for $350,000, with a $20,000 down payment and owner-financing.
- Sullivan and Andrews orally accepted the offer, and Merval Porter stated he would have his attorney prepare the necessary paperwork.
- In September 2000, the Porters gave the keys to Sullivan and Andrews, who took possession of the property and began improving the stable and trails.
- On November 25, 2000, after reaffirming the agreement, the Porters accepted $3,000 from Sullivan and Andrews as part of the down payment.
- Following the partial payment, Sullivan and Andrews began extensive and costly renovations to the farmhouse, including rewiring, new plumbing, and replacing walls.
- Merval Porter visited the property regularly, observed the ongoing renovations, and when asked about the sales paperwork, repeatedly stated he was too busy to contact his attorney.
- In June 2001, Merval Porter repudiated the oral agreement and offered to sell the property to Sullivan and Andrews for a new price of $450,000 with a $50,000 down payment.
Procedural Posture:
- Sullivan and Andrews (plaintiffs) filed a complaint against the Porters (defendants) in the Superior Court of Maine, Hancock County, alleging the existence of a contract and requesting specific performance.
- The Porters asserted the Statute of Frauds as an affirmative defense.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury was tasked with deciding whether a contract existed and serving in an advisory capacity on the equitable claims.
- The jury found that a contract existed and, in its advisory role, found in favor of Sullivan and Andrews on the issues of part performance and specific performance.
- The trial court judge adopted the jury's findings, concluded the contract was removed from the Statute of Frauds by part performance, and entered an order of specific performance compelling the Porters to sell the property.
- The Porters (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
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 part performance doctrine remove an oral contract for the sale of real estate from the Statute of Frauds when the buyers take possession of the property, make substantial improvements, and provide a partial down payment, all with the sellers' knowledge and acquiescence?
Opinions:
Majority - Saufley, C.J.
Yes, the part performance doctrine removes the oral contract for the sale of real estate from the Statute of Frauds. To overcome the Statute of Frauds, a party must prove by clear and convincing evidence (1) that a contract existed, (2) that they partially performed the contract, and (3) that this performance was induced by the other party’s misrepresentations. First, the court found sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude a contract existed, as the parties had agreed on all material terms: the property, the parties, the purchase price, the down payment, and the financing terms. Second, Sullivan and Andrews engaged in meaningful partial performance by taking possession, making extensive repairs and improvements, starting a business on the property, and making a partial down payment. Third, the Porters induced this performance through misrepresentation, which included their silent acquiescence to the renovations, their acceptance of a partial down payment, and Merval's repeated assurances that he was preparing the sale documents. This conduct led Sullivan and Andrews to detrimentally rely on the oral agreement, making it inequitable to allow the Porters to hide behind the Statute of Frauds.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the part performance doctrine as an equitable exception to the Statute of Frauds in real estate transactions. It establishes that a seller's inaction, specifically silent acquiescence while a buyer makes substantial improvements in reliance on an oral agreement, can constitute the 'misrepresentation' required for inducement. The decision prevents the Statute of Frauds, a law designed to prevent fraud, from being used as an instrument to perpetrate a fraud. This precedent strengthens the position of parties who rely on oral agreements and take substantial steps in performance with the other party's knowledge.
Unlock the full brief for Sullivan v. Porter