(logo) Attorneys' Title Guaranty Fund Inc.

Casenotes

Indiana
Statute of Frauds

Reich v Lincoln Hills Christian Church, Inc, 888 NE2d 239 (Ind Ct App, 2008).

Facts:Robert Reich entered into a written agreement with Lincoln Hills Christian Church, Inc. for the exchange of two properties. Robert Reich had a remainder interest in the property while his mother had a life estate in the property. Reich's mother did not sign the written agreement between Robert Reich and Lincoln Hills.

About a year later, Reich filed a Complaint for Specific Performance and Notice of Lis Pendens. Lincoln Hills filed an answer including a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Reich's complaint was dismissed because his mother, Mary, did not sign the written agreement and the written agreement did not adequately identify the properties involved in violation of the Statue of Frauds. Reich appealed the dismissal of his complaint.

Holding:Affirmed. On appeal Reich contended the trial court erred by dismissing his complaint pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B) (6). Reich argued the court should have treated Lincoln Hills' motion to dismiss for summary judgment and considered an affidavit from his mother that she consented to signing the written agreement.

Lincoln Hills, in response, argued the trial court's failure to convert its motion to dismiss into a motion for summary and to consider Mary's affidavit was harmless error because the written agreement did not satisfy Indiana's Statute of Frauds.

According to Indiana Code Section 32-21-1-1(b) (4), the Statute of Frauds provides that a person may not bring an action involving any contract for the sale of land "unless the promise, contract, or agreement on which the action is based, or a memorandum or note describing the promise, contract, or agreement on which the action is based, is in writing and signed by the party against whom the action is brought or by the party's authorized agent." Also, "an agreement required to be in writing must completely contain the essential terms without resort to parol evidence in order to be enforceable."Schuler v Graf, 862 NE2d 708, 713 (Ind Ct App, 2007).

An enforceable contract for the sale of land must be evidenced by some writing: (1) which has been signed by the party against whom the contract is to be enforced or their authorized agent; (2) which describes with certainty each party and the land; and, (3) which states with reasonable certainty the terms and conditions of the promises and by whom and to whom the promises were made.

The court of appeals decided the written agreement between Reich and Lincoln Hills did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds. First, the written agreement did not describe with reasonable certainty each party because Reich's mother, Mary, has an interest in the property but was not mentioned anywhere in the written agreement. Also, the written agreement did not state with reasonable certainty the terms and conditions of the promises and by whom the promises were made. The agreement did not discuss the additional steps Mary would take to terminate her life estate so Reich would own the property in fee simple, which was the intention of the parties. Finally, the written agreement did not describe with reasonable certainty the Reich property. The written agreement described the property owned by Lincoln Hills or at least a way to identify the property, however there is no such identification of the Reich property in the written agreement.

Therefore, the court of appeals found the written agreement did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds and the trial court did not error in failing to convert Lincoln Hills' motion to dismiss into a summary judgment.

[Last update: 6-11-09]