Chomicky v. Buttolph – Case Brief
Chomicky v. Buttolph, 147 Vt. 128, 131, 513 A.2d 1174, 1176 (1986).
Facts: Buttolph (D) offered to sell a summer cottage and lakeside lot and Chomicky negotiated for its purchase. The parties signed a contract prepared by Chomicky’s attorney that stated that the contract was subject to D’s obtaining a subdivision permit. P and D entered into an oral agreement to an alternative for closing the sale if the permit was denied. When the permit was denied, D informed P that the deal was off. P filed suit against D for breach of contract and sought specific performance on the oral contract.
Issue: Whether an admission to the existence of an oral contract for the sale of real property takes the contract out of the Statute of Frauds.
Holding and Rule: No. A party may admit the sale of land by a verbal contract, and yet plead the Statute of Frauds to defend an action for specific performance. Only the doctrine of part performance can take the oral contract out of the Statute of Frauds. Mere preparation for purchase is not sufficient to invoke the doctrine. Money payments by themselves are not sufficient to make the oral agreement an enforceable contract even when the party is in possession.
Part performance doctrine: to invoke the part performance doctrine there must be possession and changes or improvements made to the property.
Disposition: Reversed.