Also known as: part performance · part-performance doctrine · part performance doctrine
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An equitable exception to the statute of frauds that permits a court to order specific performance of an oral contract for the sale of land when the promisee has rendered part performance that unequivocally refers to the contract and would cause serious injustice if the agreement were not enforced.
Deborah Dunn orally agreed to buy land from Dillon Energy. After taking possession and paying part of the price, Deborah avoided the contract on grounds of incapacity and sought return of her payments. The court awarded restitution for the benefit conferred through part performance.
Damian Decker orally agreed with his neighbor to restrict use of his lot in exchange for shared access rights. Relying on the agreement, the neighbor installed utilities and made improvements. The court enforced the restriction under the doctrine despite the absence of a writing.
In February 1964, Alpine Slopes Development Company conveyed Lot 101 of Alpine Meadows Estates Subdivision No. 3 in Placer County to Ernest H. and Jewel Riley by grant deed recorded on March 13, 1964. The deed contained no restrictions upon the use of the plaintiffs’ property nor any reference to any instrument purporting to impose restrictions upon Lot 101. At the time of the conveyance there was no document of record purporting to restrict the use of Lot 101. Nine months later, on November 25, 1964, the grantor recorded a declaration of covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations on lots 72 through 116 of the subdivision. The declaration recited that the grantor had established a general plan for the improvement and development of the property and set forth 26 numbered paragraphs of restrictions, covenants and conditions, including paragraph 6, which required submission of plans and specifications to the Bear Creek Planning Committee and its approval before any dwelling, garage, building, fence, wall or other structure or excavation could be commenced or maintained. At a time not established by the record the Rileys constructed a snow tunnel on their lot. On January 12, 1972, the committee recorded a notice of violation of covenants, conditions and restrictions that referred specifically to Lot 101 and the declaration recorded November 25, 1964, and recited the probable violation of paragraph 6 in that a covered walkway had been constructed without prior compliance. The Rileys filed a complaint to quiet title and for damages for slander of title. The planning committee and some of its members cross-complained for declaratory relief. The trial court entered judgment quieting title in the Rileys against all claims of defendants and ruling for the Rileys on the cross-complaint. The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the judgment. The California Supreme Court granted a hearing for the purpose of giving further consideration to the issues raised.
View caseDorothy Daniels orally agreed to sell land to a paving subcontractor who relied by taking possession and beginning improvements. After the buyer refused to convey, the court ordered specific performance because the acts of part performance satisfied the evidentiary and hardship tests.
Dolores Diaz and her husband sold their business and moved to care for an elderly man under an oral promise that his house would become theirs. After years of performance, the court enforced the agreement through specific performance based on the unequivocal acts of part performance.
In June 1918, James A. Halsey, an old man and a widower, was living without family or housekeeper in his house in Hornell, New York. He told the plaintiffs that if they gave up their home and business in Andover, New York, and boarded and cared for him during his life, the house and lot with its furniture and equipment would be theirs upon his death. The plaintiffs did as he asked, selling out an interest in a little draying business in Andover and boarding and tending him until he died about five months after their coming. Neither deed nor will nor memorandum subscribed by the promisor exists to authenticate the promise, and the plaintiffs ask specific performance. During Halsey's lifetime the plaintiffs had no possession of the property and did not occupy it as owners. Halsey retained possession, and the plaintiffs lived with him merely as his servants or guests who could be asked to leave at any time. The plaintiffs paid food bills and performed housekeeping work while Halsey paid the taxes and upkeep costs. There were ties of kinship between one of the plaintiffs and Halsey.
View caseDwight Dorsey orally agreed to sell land to his relative. The buyer took possession, paid installments, and built substantial improvements on the property. The court granted specific performance because the acts of part performance satisfied the evidentiary and hardship tests.
Roy Smith and his twin brother Ray Smith became involved in a dispute over land ownership that originated with acquisitions in the 1940s and 1950s. Ray Smith purchased an 80-acre rectangular tract in 1943. In 1950, Ray, Roy, and their mother obtained joint title to a 42-acre tract positioned cattycornered southwest of Ray's 80 acres. In 1960, Ray and their mother transferred their interests in the 42-acre tract to Roy. This allowed Roy to mortgage the property and acquire an additional 80-acre tract north of the 42 acres and west of Ray's original holding. The brothers differed on the purpose behind the 1960 conveyance of the 42-acre tract. Ray maintained that it served only to help Roy finance the northern 80-acre purchase, with the understanding that Roy would later transfer half of the 42 acres back to Ray. Roy asserted that the transfer formed part of their parents' plan for the twins to achieve equal land ownership through mutual conveyances of half their respective parcels. On December 30, 1963, Roy conveyed about 20 acres from the 42-acre tract to Ray. Roy alleged that this transfer occurred under an oral agreement whereby Ray would convey the northern half of his 80-acre tract to Roy in exchange. Ray denied entering into any such agreement. Seventeen years later, in May 1981, Roy initiated a lawsuit against Ray seeking specific performance of the alleged oral contract. The case proceeded to a bench trial without a jury, resulting in a judgment for Roy. Ray then appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama, raising three grounds of error related to the enforcement of the oral contract.
View caseDenise Donovan paid a deposit and took possession of property under an oral agreement with Dominion Capital. When the seller later refused to convey, the court ordered specific performance because the payment and possession constituted sufficient part performance to remove the contract from the statute of frauds.
Mrs. Gladys Green owned a lot known as Lot S in the Manomet section of Plymouth. In July 1980 she advertised the lot for sale. On July 11 and 12 of that year, Mr. and Mrs. Hickey met with Mrs. Green to discuss purchasing the lot and reached an oral agreement to buy it for $15,000. On July 12 the Hickeys gave Mrs. Green a deposit check for $500. The check was marked on the back with the notation "Deposit on Lot . . . Massasoit Ave. Manomet . . . Subject to Variance from Town of Plymouth," but the payee line was left blank. Mrs. Green held the check without filling in the payee name, cashing it, or endorsing it. By July 16 it was determined that no zoning variance would be required. Relying on the arrangements with Mrs. Green, the Hickeys advertised their house on Sachem Road for sale in newspapers on three days in July 1980. They agreed to sell their house to a purchaser and accepted a $500 deposit check from that purchaser, which they deposited in their own account. On July 24 Mrs. Green informed the Hickeys that she no longer intended to sell the lot to them and had decided to sell it to another buyer for $16,000. The Hickeys offered Mrs. Green $16,000 for Lot S, but she refused the offer. The Hickeys filed a complaint in the Superior Court seeking specific performance of the agreement with Mrs. Green. The case was presented on a stipulation of facts with attached documents, which the Superior Court judge adopted as findings. The trial judge granted specific performance to the Hickeys. Mrs. Green appealed the decision to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts.
View caseMost jurisdictions require at least two of payment, possession, or valuable improvements that unequivocally refer to the oral land contract. Mere payment alone is usually insufficient because restitution remains available.
The doctrine traditionally supports only equitable relief such as specific performance. Damages are generally unavailable unless specific performance has become impossible.
Yes in some jurisdictions under the hardship or estoppel theory, though the evidentiary theory more commonly benefits buyers who have taken possession or made improvements.
The doctrine operates as a judicial exception that removes the oral contract from the statute when the acts supply the evidentiary function the writing would have served and prevent injustice.