Contract for the sale of Land

Question 1

Land Transaction (bifurcated process) includes:

Answer 1

Executory Contract + Conveyance of Deed

Question 2

Executory Contract

Answer 2

Executory Contract: not fully performed or completed yet and therefore considered imperfect or unassured until its full execution (contract signed with due diligence period until final execution)

In between time: inspection, financing, title search for deed restrictions, etc

Question 3

SOF: sale of real estate requirements

Answer 3

1. In writing
2. Signed by party to be found (squirmer trying to back out)
3. Essential term (price and description of property)

Reasons for it: finite amount/ fraud

Question 4

Exception to SOF for sale of real estate

Answer 4

Exceptions:

Part Performance/ Estoppel: oral allowed (a lot of states different) Taking possession or paying all or part or making valuable - prove unconscionable (unfair or unjust) injury would result from denying enforcement of oral contract based on reliance

Elements:

1. prove harm
2. prove oral contract (where is the evidence/ conceded?)
3. detrimental reliance

Question 5

Marketable title

Answer 5

Definition:
free from competing ownership claims and
hazards of litigation/
a title not subject to such a reasonable doubt
as would create a just apprehension of its validity
in the mind of a reasonable, prudent and intelligent person
for which they would be willing to pay for fair value

Free of major defects/ no conflict of interest

Burden on seller because law presumes they know more about their property

Question 6

Lohmeyer v. Bower (marketable title)

Answer 6

He would get sued if he bought the property and is able to rescind because title is not marketable for that reason (not existence of zoning ordinance but the violation of it)

Question 7

Hickey v. Green

Answer 7

Second check of meeting price: in writing, signed by ptbb, has price and description (so not an exception, meets statute)

Rule of Law

An oral land-transfer agreement may be specifically enforced, even though it violates the Statute of Frauds, if the party seeking enforcement detrimentally relied on the validity of the contract and injustice can be avoided only by specific performance.

Facts

Gladys Green (defendant) negotiated to sell land to the Hickeys (plaintiffs). The parties came to an oral agreement, and the Hickeys gave Green a $500 deposit. The Hickeys told Green that they were going to sell their old house and build on Green’s lot. Less than ten days after making the deposit, the Hickeys sold their house. Green told the Hickeys that she no longer intended to sell the property to them and had found another buyer. The Hickeys offered to meet the other buyer’s price, but Green refused. The Hickeys sued Green, seeking specific performance of the agreement. Green argued that specific performance was unavailable, because the agreement did not comply with the Statute of Frauds. The lower court ruled in favor of the Hickeys and granted specific performance. Green appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court