Thies v. Wheelock
100 N.E.3d 903, 2017 Ohio 8605 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral agreement to jointly bid on real property at an auction, with a plan to subsequently divide the parcels, is not a contract for the sale of land and is therefore not rendered unenforceable by the Statute of Frauds. Even if the Statute did apply, the doctrine of partial performance can make such an oral contract enforceable if one party detrimentally relies on the agreement by forbearing from bidding.
Facts:
- Paul Thies and Kenneth Wheelock both attended a real estate auction where five parcels of land were for sale.
- Thies was interested in purchasing parcels 4 and 5, while Wheelock wanted to purchase all five parcels.
- During the auction, Wheelock approached Thies and they formed an oral agreement to pursue a joint bid.
- Under the agreement, Thies would cease bidding, and Wheelock would place a single bid on all five parcels on behalf of both parties.
- If Wheelock's bid was successful, Thies would pay him $180,000 for parcels 4 and 5, and Wheelock would keep parcels 1, 2, and 3.
- In reliance on this agreement, Thies stopped bidding on parcels 4 and 5.
- Wheelock successfully purchased all five parcels with a winning bid of $330,000.
- After the auction concluded, Wheelock repudiated the agreement and refused to transfer parcels 4 and 5 to Thies for the agreed price.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Thies sued Kenneth Wheelock in the Miami County Court of Common Pleas (the trial court), seeking specific performance and damages.
- Thies later amended his complaint to add a claim for the imposition of a constructive trust on the disputed properties.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Thies, holding that an enforceable oral contract existed.
- The trial court ordered specific performance, requiring Wheelock to transfer the parcels to Thies upon payment, and imposed a constructive trust.
- Wheelock, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second Appellate District.
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 for the sale of an interest in land to be in writing, render an oral agreement between two parties to jointly bid on real property at an auction unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Froelich, J.
No, the Statute of Frauds does not render the oral agreement unenforceable. The agreement was not a contract for the sale of land, but rather an agreement to jointly negotiate for the right to purchase property from a third party. At the time the agreement was made, neither party owned the land, so the contract could not be for the sale of an interest in land between them. The court reasoned that this situation is distinct from an option to purchase land already owned by one of the parties. Furthermore, even if the Statute of Frauds were applicable, Thies's partial performance—forbearing from bidding on the properties to his detriment—was an unequivocal act referable to the oral agreement that would remove it from the statute's writing requirement. Because the agreement involved unique real property, specific performance is an appropriate remedy without a separate showing that legal damages are inadequate.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the Statute of Frauds by distinguishing between a contract for the sale of land and a preliminary joint venture agreement to acquire land from a third party. It establishes that such oral agreements to team up for a purchase are enforceable, which is significant in contexts like auctions where creating formal written contracts is impractical. The ruling reinforces the equitable purpose of the partial performance doctrine, preventing a party from using the Statute of Frauds as a shield for fraudulent conduct after inducing another's detrimental reliance.
