Min Quin Shao, as executrix of the estate of Lincoln N. Jenkins v. Floyd Corley and Susan Corley

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/20/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2110133 Min Quin Shao, as e x e c u t r i x o f the e s t a t e o f L i n c o l n N. Jenkins v. F l o y d C o r l e y and Susan C o r l e y Appeal from Washington C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-900063) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Min Jenkins, Q u i n Shao, as e x e c u t r i x o f t h e e s t a t e o f L i n c o l n N. appeals Court ordering Susan Corley from t h e judgment o f t h e Washington Shao t o convey t o F l o y d C o r l e y ("Susan") a c e r t a i n p a r c e l Circuit ("Floyd") and of real property 2110133 located in Malcolm. For the reasons stated herein, we Floyd purchased a reverse. In parcel the late of r e a l 1990s property or early 2000s, i n Malcolm ("Lot A y e a r o r two l a t e r , he b o u g h t an a d j a c e n t Jenkins. 2005, t h e In Corleys 15") from l o t ("Lot moved o n t o t h o s e Jenkins. 14") from parcels and began r e s i d i n g t h e r e . According to his purchase from Jenkins parcel") 1 trial testimony, t o and I n a document d a t e d F e b r u a r y 25, the and parcel " L i n c o l n A. a deposit Jenkins on delivered. testified land. Also that, J e n k i n s $750. He signed behind Lot 14 ("the and will pursuant Lot 15. 2005, r e l a t e d t o t h e s a l e o f by Jenkins, Jenkins o f $1,450 t o be 50/50 to to third wrote: r e c e i v e d f r o m [ i l l e g i b l e ] C o r l e y $750 Balance we contracted a t h i r d p a r c e l of p r o p e r t y located adjacent third Floyd the the survey above stated that Jenkins t h e t h i r d p a r c e l s u r v e y e d and w o u l d c a l l p a i d when d e e d cost." agreement, t o l d him as Floyd he paid he w o u l d have him when he had the The C o r l e y s r e f e r t o t h e t h i r d p a r c e l as " P a r c e l 88" b e c a u s e , t h e y a s s e r t , t h a t p a r c e l was d e n o m i n a t e d as s u c h on a s u r v e y t h a t was p r e p a r e d a f t e r F l o y d had a g r e e d t o p u r c h a s e the p a r c e l from J e n k i n s . 1 2 2110133 deed ready. the F l o y d t e s t i f i e d t h a t , at the time Jenkins document, a p a r c e l and time that Jenkins had Floyd he the not been p r e p a r e d m a r k e r s on boundary could lines identify t e s t i f i e d that assert, that Jenkins had the parcel had Jenkins Jenkins the the ground at the third that parcel. Floyd parcel before third later later d e l i v e r e d to t h i r d p a r c e l , on w h i c h , t h e was designated prepared t o t h e t h i r d p a r c e l was and called as that, ready. "Parcel after F l o y d and Corleys 88," that t h a t the d i e d , however, the deed before him. and, i n October 2009, removed a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the e s t a t e to the Washington C i r c u i t they a C o r l e y s f i l e d a c l a i m a g a i n s t J e n k i n s ' s e s t a t e i n the Washington Probate Court, I n the him delivering t o l d him Jenkins F l o y d c o u l d o b t a i n the deed from The of f o r the i t surveyed. copy o f a s u r v e y o f survey, not t h a t t h e r e were no indicating stated s u r v e y had signed c i r c u i t c o u r t , the C o r l e y s sought a judgment s p e c i f i c a l l y perform the filed requiring contract a complaint that f o r the estate conveyance of the performance, a w a r d i n g c o m p e n s a t o r y damages o f $750 f o r b r e a c h o f 3 Court. i n which Jenkins's t h i r d p a r c e l , o r , s h o u l d t h e c o u r t deny s p e c i f i c the contract. 2110133 Shao, as t h e e x e c u t r i x o f t h e e s t a t e , f i l e d an answer i n w h i c h she, among o t h e r affirmative The 9, 2011, circuit things, r a i s e d the Statute o f F r a u d s as defense. c i r c u i t c o u r t h e l d a b e n c h t r i a l o f t h e a c t i o n on May at which only Floyd t e s t i f i e d . the court entered a final judgment On J u l y 8, i n which 2011, i t ordered Shao t o e x e c u t e a c o n v e y a n c e o f P a r c e l 88 t o F l o y d and upon t h e i r payment o f $1,450 t o J e n k i n s ' s estate. Shao's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t the Statute Susan Rejecting of Frauds b a r r e d e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e a g r e e m e n t t o c o n v e y P a r c e l 88, court an the specific circuit wrote: "The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t a c o n t r a c t f o r s a l e o f land, to satisfy the s t a t u t e of frauds, must d e s c r i b e t h e l a n d w i t h s u c h c e r t a i n t y t h a t i t can be i d e n t i f i e d without r e s o r t to o r a l evidence. See Shannon v. Wisdom, 171 A l a . 409, 55 So. 102 (1911). However, a g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n may be made s p e c i f i c and c e r t a i n by p a r o l [ e v i d e n c e ] and c o n c u r r e n t f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u f f i c i e n t t o t h a t end. Goodwyn v. J o n e s , 288 A l a . 71, 257 So. 2d 320 (1971). " W h i l e t h e c o n t r a c t does n o t c o n t a i n a t e c h n i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e l a n d s c o n t r a c t e d f o r , i t does c o n t a i n f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t t o i d e n t i f y them. The p a r t i e s a g r e e d i n t h e w r i t i n g t o have a s u r v e y o f t h e l a n d s c o n d u c t e d and L i n c o l n A. J e n k i n s p r o v i d e d a copy of the p l a t of s u r v e y t o [ F l o y d ] p r i o r t o Jenkins's death. The c o n t r a c t f u r n i s h e d t h e means of identification (the survey), the applicable p r i n c i p l e b e i n g t h a t t h a t i s c e r t a i n w h i c h can be 4 2110133 made c e r t a i n . See Goodwyn v. J o n e s , s u p r a , c i t i n g 23 A.L.R. 2d, S t a t u t e o f F r a u d s , S e c t i o n 2." Shao filed a judgment, which the c i r c u i t appeal, which motion o u r supreme to alter, court court amend, denied. or vacate Shao the filed transferred to this an court p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code 1975. Shao c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t her t o convey court P a r c e l 88 t o t h e C o r l e y s c o n t r a c t on w h i c h t h e y erred i n ordering because the w r i t t e n r e l i e d d i d not s a t i s f y the Statute of F r a u d s due t o t h e i n s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e l a n d being sold. The f a c t s r e l a t e d t o t h i s i s s u e a r e thus, t h i s appeal presents court reviews de novo. undisputed; a pure q u e s t i o n of law, which See S i m c a l a , I n c . v. A m e r i c a n this Coal T r a d e , I n c . , 821 So. 2d 197, 200 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . S e c t i o n 8 - 9 - 2 ( 5 ) , A l a . Code 1975, t h e S t a t u t e o f F r a u d s , provides, i n pertinent part: "In t h e f o l l o w i n g cases, e v e r y agreement i s v o i d u n l e s s s u c h a g r e e m e n t o r some n o t e o r memorandum thereof expressing the consideration i s i n w r i t i n g and s u b s c r i b e d b y t h e p a r t y t o be c h a r g e d t h e r e w i t h o r some o t h e r p e r s o n b y h i m t h e r e u n t o lawfully authorized i n w r i t i n g : " "(5) E v e r y c o n t r a c t f o r t h e s a l e o f l a n d s , tenements o r h e r e d i t a m e n t s , o r o f any i n t e r e s t 5 2110133 t h e r e i n , except l e a s e s f o r a term not longer than one y e a r , u n l e s s t h e p u r c h a s e money, o r a p o r t i o n thereof i s paid and t h e p u r c h a s e r i s put i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e l a n d by t h e s e l l e r " I n Goodwyn v. J o n e s , 288 A l a . 71, 257 So. 2d 320 (1971), o u r supreme c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t , g e n e r a l l y , "a c o n t r a c t f o r s a l e o f l a n d , t o s a t i s f y t h e s t a t u t e o f f r a u d s , must d e s c r i b e t h e land with such certainty that resort to o r a l evidence." Stating that this i t can be identified without 288 A l a . a t 75, 257 So. 2d a t 323. general rule i n f l e x i b l e , " however, t h e c o u r t " i s not unqualified continued: "The p r i n c i p l e i s d i s c u s s e d i n 23 A.L.R. 2d, S t a t u t e o f F r a u d s , § 2, where t h e t e s t f o r s u f f i c i e n c y i s said to be: "'... does t h e w r i t i n g f u r n i s h t h e means o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , o r , as some c a s e s have i t , does i t p r o v i d e t h e " k e y " t o t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the a p p l i c a b l e p r i n c i p l e b e i n g t h a t t h a t i s c e r t a i n w h i c h can be made c e r t a i n . ... " ' "'... The i n i t i a l q u e s t i o n , i t seems, i s n o t w h e t h e r t h e words a r e c l e a r l y and i n d i s p u t a b l y s u f f i c i e n t , but r a t h e r whether t h e y a r e s u c h as w i l l e n t i t l e t h e c l a i m a n t t o go f o r w a r d w i t h h i s p r o o f s and show i f he can t h a t i n t h e l i g h t o f p r o p e r e v i d e n c e the subject of sale is sufficiently designated.'" 6 and 2110133 288 A l a . at 76, 257 So. 2d at 323. Thus, i n Goodwyn, the supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t a d e s c r i p t i o n o f l a n d c o n t a i n e d i n a sales contract sufficiently complied with the Statute Frauds, d e s p i t e a l a c k of s p e c i f i c i t y i n the d e s c r i p t i o n . court of The wrote: "In the i n s t a n t case, each complainant was occupying a c e r t a i n area of l a n d w i t h i n the 34 a c r e s . The l i n e s o f t h e o c c u p a n c y were i m p r e s s e d by c l e a r e d l a n d and i m p r o v e m e n t s . Respondent e l e c t e d by a d o p t i o n o f an i n s t r u m e n t p r e p a r e d by L & N t o o f f e r each complainant the o p p o r t u n i t y t o purchase t h i s o c c u p i e d a r e a upon payment o f a sum s e t f o r t h i n t h e o f f e r . E a c h c o m p l a i n a n t was i n p o s s e s s i o n o f only one occupied area within the 34 acres. R e s p o n d e n t d e s i g n a t e d t h e a r e a t o be purchased, namely the occupied area. We think i t was permissible to identify the occupied area by c o m p e t e n t e v i d e n c e , and t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t , h a v i n g e l e c t e d t o d e s i g n a t e t h e a r e a by a g e n e r a l t e r m , c a n n o t now c o m p l a i n a g a i n s t e v i d e n c e t o e s t a b l i s h by metes and b o u n d s , o r o t h e r d e s c r i p t i o n , t h e o c c u p i e d area." 288 A l a . a t 77, 257 So. 2d a t 325 (emphasis added). I n M u l l i n a x v. G a l e n - M a r s h a l l , I n c . , 642 So. 2d 431 ( A l a . 1994), the t r i a l property c o u r t concluded t h a t the d e s c r i p t i o n of contained in a c o n t r a c t f o r the sale of i n s u f f i c i e n t t o comply w i t h the S t a t u t e of Frauds. land real was Entering a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e s e l l e r s i n t h e p u r c h a s e r s ' 7 2110133 action trial for specific court performance of the sales contract, the wrote: " ' I t i s u n d i s p u t e d from t h e documents f i l e , and the testimony presented, t h a t t h e a l l e g e d c o n t r a c t o r c o n t r a c t s do n o t c o n t a i n a n y l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n . The o n l y r e f e r e n c e i n e i t h e r w r i t t e n document i s "see l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n . " T h e r e i s r e v e a l e d i n t h e d e p o s i t i o n s , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had n o t been a b l e t o s e t t l e on a l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n . ' " 624 So. 2d a t 432. On a p p e a l , o u r supreme c o u r t wrote: "The t r i a l j u d g m e n t c o r r e c t l y o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e S t a t u t e o f F r a u d s does n o t i n v a l i d a t e a c o n t r a c t merely because i t c o n t a i n s '"a g e n e r a l uncertain d e s c r i p t i o n [ , where t h a t d e s c r i p t i o n ] c a n be made s p e c i f i c and c e r t a i n by p a r o l e v i d e n c e o f c o n c u r r e n t f a c t s and circumstances s u f f i c i e n t t o that end."' Goodwyn v. J o n e s , 288 A l a . 7 1 , 75, 257 So. 2d 320, 324 (1971) ( e m p h a s i s added) (quoting Dobson v . Deason, 248 A l a . 496, 498, 28 So. 2d 418, 419 (1946)). However, t h e i n s t r u m e n t must a t l e a s t ' " f u r n i s h t h e means o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , o r , as some c a s e s have i t , ... p r o v i d e t h e 'key' t o t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , the a p p l i c a b l e p r i n c i p l e being that that i s c e r t a i n which c a n be made c e r t a i n . " ' Goodwyn, 288 A l a . a t 76, 257 So. 2d a t 324 ( e m p h a s i s added) (quoting Annotation, Statute FraudsD e s c r i p t i o n o f L a n d , 23 A.L.R.2d 6, 12-13 ( 1 9 5 2 ) ) . "The i n s t r u m e n t s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e ... a r e not so d i r e c t l y l i n k e d t o c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d f a c t s and circumstances that the d e s c r i p t i o n of the p r o p e r t y c a n be 'made c e r t a i n . ' ... " 8 2110133 " I t i s undisputed t h a t the instruments i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e do n o t d e s c r i b e t h e p r o p e r t y t o w h i c h they refer. More significantly, the 'legal d e s c r i p t i o n ' r e f e r e n c e d i n the instruments could r e f e r t o e i t h e r o f two p a r c e l s o f significantly d i f f e r e n t dimensions." 642 So. trial 2d at court's enforce the In the 432-44. Thus, the summary judgment supreme c o u r t refusing to affirmed the specifically s a l e s c o n t r a c t on w h i c h t h e p u r c h a s e r s relied. recent 209 case of N i x v. Wick, 66 So. 3d (Ala. 2 0 1 0 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t d i s t i n g u i s h e d i t s h o l d i n g i n Goodwyn and c o n c l u d e d t h a t the in that case c o n t r a c t f o r the s a l e of l a n d at violated the Statute of Frauds i n s u f f i c i e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d t h e l a n d t h a t was contract. issue because i t the s u b j e c t of the I n N i x , t h e p a r t i e s s i g n e d an a g r e e m e n t w h e r e b y t h e p l a i n t i f f s p u r c h a s e d a house and f o u r and a h a l f a c r e s o f and a contract property containing described contract contained the adjoining p a r t i e s signed as "at an option least to five acres." a requirement t h a t the property surveyed. a sales contract that purchase adjoining The option s e l l e r s w o u l d have Shortly thereafter, provided: "'The [purchasers] hereby agree to p u r c h a s e and t h e [ s e l l e r s ] h e r e b y a g r e e t o s e l l the f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i b e d l o t or other u n i m p r o v e d l a n d and a p p u r t e n a n c e s t h e r e t o ... s i t u a t e d i n t h e C i t y o f G a r d e n d a l e , 9 land the 2110133 C o u n t y o f J e f f e r s o n , A l a b a m a on t h e t e r m s s t a t e d b e l o w : A d d r e s s : a d j a c e n t t o 296 West S h u g a r t R i d g e and l e g a l l y d e s c r i b e d as L o t , Block Survey Map Book Page "'1A. $32,500 acres) 66 So. 3d at THE per 211. That c o n t r a c t a t t a c h a copy o f , the had previously After another sellers the performance. option referenced, but failed c o n t r a c t i n t o which the p a r t i e s did not purchasers The convey filed an the property i n dispute) who had an property action defendants i n that a c t i o n individual ownership for to the specific (the s e l l e r s interest in court d i d not r a i s e d t h e S t a t u t e o f F r a u d s as a d e f e n s e adequately describe a g r e e d and and the on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t f o r t h e s a l e o f t h e p r o p e r t y dispute to entered. the purchasers, PURCHASE PRICE s h a l l be acre (at least five entered the p r o p e r t y . The a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r in trial of the defendants. On that appeal, the fact t h e p u r c h a s e r s c o n t e n d e d , among o t h e r that a survey was called for in the things, option c o n t r a c t s a t i s f i e d the S t a t u t e of Frauds, d e s p i t e the l a c k of a s p e c i f i c d e s c r i p t i o n of the p r o p e r t y 10 i n the s a l e s contract. 2110133 Rejecting that contention, the h o l d i n g s o u r supreme c o u r t , a f t e r e x a m i n i n g i n Goodwyn a n d M u l l i n a x , wrote: "In t h i s case, the [purchasers] contend, based on t h e l a n g u a g e i n t h e [ o p t i o n c o n t r a c t ] , t h a t t h e survey contemplated by t h e [option c o n t r a c t ] ' i s t h e key' t h a t s a t i s f i e s t h e e x c e p t i o n s t a t e d i n Goodwyn and M u l l i n a x . S p e c i f i c a l l y , they argue t h a t t h e [defendants] 'admitted a t t h e i r d e p o s i t i o n s t h a t a s u r v e y o r c o u l d go o u t a n d f u l f i l l t h e c o n t r a c t u a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s u r v e y i n g and r e z o n i n g t h e acreage t o t h e l e f t o f t h e h o u s e , i n c l u d i n g t h e 40 f e e t o f road frontage, and s e l l t h e l a n d t o ' t h e [ t h e purchasers]. ... The [defendants], however, c o r r e c t l y n o t e t h a t t h e s u r v e y r e l i e d on b y t h e [ p u r c h a s e r s ] does n o t y e t e x i s t a n d d i d n o t e x i s t a t t h e t i m e t h e [ s a l e s ] c o n t r a c t was e x e c u t e d . The e x c e p t i o n s t a t e d i n Goodwyn a n d M u l l i n a x a l l o w s a general description to be made certain by 'concurrent f a c t s and circumstances.' Goodwyn, 288 A l a . a t 75, 257 So. 2d a t 323 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . The g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y r e f e r e n c e d must be c a p a b l e o f b e i n g made c e r t a i n a t t h e t i m e t h e parties contracted. Reference t o a d e s c r i p t i o n not yet i n e x i s t e n c e cannot b r i n g t h e [sales] c o n t r a c t w i t h i n the exception. " A d d i t i o n a l l y , as i n M u l l i n a x , t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e [ s a l e s ] c o n t r a c t does n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y i d e n t i f y t h e l a n d t o be s o l d ; i n d e e d , t h e [ s a l e s ] c o n t r a c t does n o t d e s c r i b e t h e l a n d t o be s o l d . The o n l y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the land i n the contract could refer t o a n y number of 'at l e a s t ' five-acre configurations of the land adjacent t o the property l o c a t e d a t 296 West S h u g a r t R i d g e . Furthermore, from t h e d e p o s i t i o n testimony o f [two o f t h e p a r t i e s ] , i t i s apparent t h a t t h e l a n d d i s c u s s e d by t h e [ s e l l e r s ] a n d t h e [ p u r c h a s e r s ] was d e s c r i b e d i n terms o f p o t e n t i a l boundary l i n e s ; t h e p a r t i e s had n o t s e t t l e d on a n y ' a r e a t h a t was w e l l d e m a r c a t e d and r e c o g n i z e d . ' M u l l i n a x , 642 So. 2d a t 433-34. 11 2110133 Therefore, u n l i k e the instrument i n Goodwyn, t h e th« [ s a l e s ] c o n t r a c t i s 'not so d i r e c t l y l i n k e d t o ^ l ^ - ^ ^ l , , ^ ^ A l v - ^ ^ ^ 1 l l- -, !4-1-,, c l e a r l y e s t a. b- ll i ;s !h- ,e^ d f a c t s a n d c-i , ,c , ,m ^ -t a n ^ ^e^s^ -t- h, a- t t h e r ^u ¢s ! . c d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y c a n be "made c e r t a i n . " ' M u l l i n a x , 642 So. 2d a t 433. Accordingly, the [ s a l e s ] c o n t r a c t does n o t ' f u r n i s h t h e means o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , ' Goodwyn, 288 A l a . a t 75, 257 So. 2d a t 323, o f t h e l a n d t o be s o l d , a n d t h e [ p u r c h a s e r s ] have n o t shown t h a t t h e [ s a l e s ] c o n t r a c t falls w i t h i n t h i s exception t o the Statute of Frauds." Nix, 66 So. 3d a t 2 1 4 - 1 5 . T h u s , o u r supreme c o u r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e In the present nothing dimensions of describes i n t h e document the p a r c e l t h e p a r c e l o n l y as describes i n any way. the l o c a t i o n or The d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e l a n d on w h i c h t h e c i r c u i t f i n d i n g t h a t t h e document c o m p l i e d was the reference defendants. c a s e , t h e document r e l a t i n g t o t h e s a l e o f the t h i r d p a r c e l t o the C o r l e y s "land"; affirmed "key" t o t h e court r e l i e d i n w i t h the S t a t u t e of Frauds i n t h e document t o a s u r v e y , the cost of which the p a r t i e s would share. However, t h e s u r v e y yet t h e document been p r e p a r e d a t the time Thus, as o u r supreme c o u r t c o n c l u d e d present and executed. i n Nix, the survey i n the case cannot c o n s t i t u t e evidence o f "concurrent circumstances" description Corleys. was had not of that could the property make that was certain the general t o be sold to the As t h e N i x c o u r t s t a t e d , f o r t h e Goodwyn 12 facts exception 2110133 to apply, referenced the "[t]he must be parties general description capable of b e i n g contracted." Nix, 66 of the property made c e r t a i n a t t h e So. 3d at 215 time (emphasis added). B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we the s a l e of the t h i r d p a r c e l was t h e S t a t u t e o f F r a u d s and, e r r e d when i t o r d e r e d The circuit cause is conclude t h a t the c o n t r a c t f o r court's unenforceable v i r t u e of as a r e s u l t , t h a t t h e c i r c u i t s p e c i f i c performance of t h a t judgment i s t h e r e f o r e remanded by for further contract. reversed, proceedings, and complaint. the including c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e a l t e r n a t i v e demand f o r r e l i e f t h e asserted i n their court Corleys 2 We n o t e t h a t , i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , t h e C o r l e y s a r g u e d for the a p p l i c a t i o n of the part-performance e x c e p t i o n to the S t a t u t e of Frauds. Under t h a t e x c e p t i o n , t h e S t a t u t e o f F r a u d s does n o t a p p l y t o t h e s a l e o f r e a l p r o p e r t y when " t h e p u r c h a s e money, o r a p o r t i o n t h e r e o f i s p a i d and t h e p u r c h a s e r i s p u t i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e l a n d by t h e s e l l e r . " § 8 - 9 - 2 ( 5 ) , Ala. Code 1975. A l t h o u g h t h e r e was e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e C o r l e y s had p a i d a p o r t i o n o f t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e t o J e n k i n s , t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e e l i c i t e d a t t r i a l t h a t t h e C o r l e y s had b e e n p u t i n p o s s e s s i o n of the t h i r d p a r c e l . B e c a u s e t h e C o r l e y s b o r e t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f on t h a t i s s u e , Si ns, [Ms. 2100017, Dec. 16, 2011] So. see Simmons v v. Si Civ. App. 2011), the c i r c u i t court's -P-P i ^ ^ l - , !l ^ t j u d g m e n t c a n n o t be a f f i r ^m^ e d on -t- lh, -a- t b -a, s, i is^ . 2 13 2110133 REVERSED AND REMANDED. P i t t m a n , B r y a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 14

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.