RICHARD H. PRANT et al. v. PAUL STERLING et al.

(NOTE: This decision was approved by the court for publication.)
This case can also be found at 332 N.J. Super. 292.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
 
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
 
 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-4856-98T3

RICHARD H. PRANT and
HEATHER G. PRANT,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

PAUL STERLING and FLEET BANK, N.A.,

Defendants-Respondents.
___________________________________

Argued: April 12, 2000 - Decided: June 20, 2000

Before Judges Kestin, Wefing and Steinberg.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, General Equity Part, Warren County.

Lawrence P. Cohen argued the cause for appellants
(Courter, Kobert, Laufer & Cohen, attorneys;
Mr. Cohen, of counsel and on the brief).

William D. Grand argued the cause for respondents
(Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith, Ravin, Davis & Himmel,
attorneys; Mr. Grand, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's order dismissing the complaint on defendants' motion for summary judgment. On April 30, 1999, Judge Herr rendered an oral opinion disposing of the matter based upon her interpretation and application of L. 1995, C. 360, 4, which had amended the Statute of Frauds to provide, inter alia:

An agreement to transfer an interest in real estate or to hold an interest in real estate for the benefit of another shall not be enforceable unless:
 
* * *
 
 
 
b. a description of the real estate sufficient to identify it, the nature of the interest to be transferred, the existence of the agreement and the identity of the transferor and the transferee are proved by clear and convincing evidence.
 
[N.J.S.A. 25:1-13.]
 
By reason of this provision, the acquisition of an interest in land may be established by parol evidence for the first time in modern history.
Judge Herr's oral opinion has since been formalized and is reported at ___ N.J. Super. ___. After reviewing the record in the light of the written and oral arguments advanced by the parties, we are in substantial agreement with the decisional rationale employed by Judge Herr and affirm on that basis.
Affirmed.