Caseflicks

Massachusetts Appeals Court • 1982

Hickey v. Green

442 N.E.2d 37 | 14 Mass. App. Ct. 671

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a seller who admits an oral land-sale agreement cannot invoke the Statute of Frauds after the buyer reasonably and materially relies on the promise, particularly where the seller repudiates solely for a better offer.

Background

Gladys Green orally agreed to sell the Hickeys a vacant Plymouth lot for $15,000. She accepted, but never completed or cashed, a $500 deposit check marked as a deposit on the lot and initially made subject to a zoning variance. Within days, the parties learned that no variance was necessary.

Green knew that the Hickeys intended to sell their home and build on the lot. Relying on the oral agreement, the Hickeys promptly advertised their home, accepted a buyer's $500 deposit, endorsed and deposited that check, and thereby apparently bound themselves to sell their own property for $44,000. Before the transaction closed, Green repudiated the agreement because another buyer offered her $16,000. The Hickeys offered to match that price, but Green refused.

The Hickeys sued for specific performance. On stipulated facts, the Superior Court granted that relief. Green appealed, arguing that the Statute of Frauds barred enforcement of the unwritten land-sale agreement.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Statute of Frauds barred specific enforcement of Green's oral agreement to sell the lot.

Holding

No. Green was equitably estopped from invoking the Statute of Frauds because the Hickeys reasonably and substantially relied on her admitted promise before she repudiated it.

Reasoning

The court adopted the principle reflected in Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 129: an oral land-transfer agreement may be specifically enforced when the party seeking enforcement reasonably relies on the contract and the promisor's continuing assent, changes position as a result, and can avoid injustice only through specific enforcement. Massachusetts decisions had traditionally imposed demanding requirements, often involving possession, improvements, or payment, but more recent cases showed a broader willingness to grant equitable relief when the whole set of circumstances justified it.

The evidence of the agreement was especially strong. Green did not deny that she had made the oral bargain, accepted the Hickeys' deposit check, and knew that they intended to sell their existing home in order to build on her lot. When the promise itself is admitted or clearly proved, the usual concern that conduct must be unequivocally referable to an alleged oral agreement carries less force.

The Hickeys' reliance was both prompt and reasonable. Less than ten days after giving Green their deposit, they had advertised their house, accepted a purchaser's deposit, and deposited it in their account. The notation on that purchaser's check may itself have created an enforceable written obligation to convey the Hickeys' house; at minimum, escaping the sale could have required costly litigation. This was a real change in position, not merely a preparatory step or payment for which restitution would necessarily be adequate.

The court rejected any suggestion that the parties were still engaged in incomplete negotiations. Nothing showed that either side anticipated a later purchase-and-sale agreement, lawyers were not involved, and the circumstances supported the inference that a rapid cash transaction was intended. Green repudiated only after receiving a better offer, and equity could not permit her to use the Statute of Frauds to benefit from that opportunistic reversal.

Issue #2

Whether the judgment ordering conveyance required modification or further proceedings concerning the proper equitable remedy.

Holding

Yes. The case was remanded so that any conveyance would be conditioned on the Hickeys' payment of the remaining $15,000 purchase price and so the trial judge could determine whether later events made restitution, rather than specific performance, appropriate.

Reasoning

The original judgment ordered Green to convey the lot but inadvertently omitted the reciprocal condition that the Hickeys pay the agreed $15,000 price. Specific performance must enforce the actual bargain on both sides, so the amended judgment had to require cash payment of the balance within a stated period.

More than two years had passed since Green's repudiation, and the record did not establish the current status of the Hickeys' agreement to sell their house. If that sale had been completed or remained enforceable, the reliance injury supporting specific performance would continue to justify compelling Green's conveyance.

If the house-sale agreement had instead been abrogated or materially modified, the equitable posture could differ. The trial judge could reopen the record to receive proof on that question and, if circumstances no longer warranted specific performance, could award full restitution for reasonably caused costs, including advertising expenses, deposits, reasonable litigation costs, and interest.