Sappington v. Miller

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Before LOWENSTEIN; PER CURIAM
• Citation: Sappington v. Miller, 821 S.W.2d 901 (Mo. App. 1992)
• Decision Date: 14 January 1992
• Docket Number: No. WD,WD
• Parties: Noble H. SAPPINGTON, Respondent, v. Betty MILLER, Appellant. 44270.

Page 901

821 S.W.2d 901

Noble H. SAPPINGTON, Respondent, v. Betty MILLER, Appellant.

No. WD 44270.

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District.

Jan. 14, 1992.

Larry Delano Coleman, Kansas City, for appellant.

Thomas C. Fincham, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, C.J., and SHANGLER and TURNAGE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a decree of specific performance ordering the appellant Miller to carry out a settlement agreement. She contends that the settlement agreement is unenforceable because it violates the Statute of Frauds, and that the trial court erred in allowing her former attorney to testify at trial concerning his representation of Miller. The judgment is affirmed.

In March of 1985, the respondent Sappington filed suit to rescind a deed which he had conveyed to his stepdaughter Miller. The deed in question gave appellant a tenancy-in-common interest in a piece of residential property which respondent had owned with his late wife. At approximately the same time, the appellant filed a separate action against Sappington seeking a partition and sale of the disputed property. In both actions, which were later consolidated for trial, respondent's counsel was Michael J. Svetlic, and appellant's counsel was Frank Smith.

Following settlement negotiations, Svetlic prepared a document formalizing an oral settlement agreement which was reached by Svetlic and Smith. According to the settlement document, the appellant was to execute a quitclaim deed conveying her interest in the property back to respondent. In return, the respondent was to give the appellant an $8,000.00 promissory note and deed of trust. However, appellant never signed the settlement document, and the proposed transfer of money and the quitclaim deed never took place.

Consequently, respondent filed a petition for specific performance of the oral settlement agreement. Smith as Miller's former lawyer was called as a witness at the trial of the specific performance action, where he testified that he had conducted settlement negotiations with Svetlic, and that the two attorneys had reached an oral agreement settling the parties' claims. Smith also testified the appellant had expressly given him the authority to enter into the settlement negotiations, and that appellant expressly agreed to the specific settlement reached by the attorneys. However, Smith testified, appellant later changed her mind and refused to sign the document.

Svetlic also testified at the trial of the specific performance action, and stated that he and Smith reached an oral settlement agreement on the weekend before the trial was scheduled to begin. Svetlic further testified that, on the date of the trial, he and Smith appeared before the trial judge and informed him that the case was settled. Svetlic also testified that, approximately one month later, both cases were dismissed with prejudice by the trial court.

Following the trial, the trial court issued a decree of specific performance ordering both parties to carry out the terms of the settlement agreement reached between Smith and Svetlic. Appellant's counterclaim for a partition of the property was denied.

As her first point on appeal, the appellant claims the oral settlement agreement reached by Smith and Svetlic is unenforceable because it violates the Statute of Frauds. Therefore, she argues, the trial court erred in ordering the specific performance of that agreement.

The Statute of Frauds, § 432.010, RSMo 1986, provides that no action shall be brought to charge any person "upon any contract made for the sale of lands, tenements, hereditaments, or an interest in or concerning them" unless the agreement upon which the action rests is "in writing and signed by the party to be charged." An oral contract to convey land falls within the literal ambit of the Statute of Frauds and so will not be enforced at law. Gegg v. Kiefer, 655 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Mo.App.1983).

A compromise settlement is a contract, and must be in writing if the subject matter of the compromise is within the Statute of Frauds. McPherson Redevelopment Corp. v. Shelton, 770 S.W.2d 448, 451 (Mo.App.1989). In determining whether the Statute of Frauds is applicable to a compromise settlement, the courts are concerned with the intended effect of the compromise, and not with the question of whether the parties' antecedent claims are based on matters governed by the Statute of Frauds. Id. In the case at bar, the intended consequence of the settlement agreement was that appellant would convey her interest in the disputed property to respondent in exchange for an $8,000.00 promissory note and deed of trust. This transaction is governed by the terms of the Statute of Frauds.

However, despite the strict terms of the Statute of Frauds, equity will enforce an oral contract to convey real estate where one party has partially performed or has done other acts in reliance on such contract, and thereby has changed his position so materially that to invoke the statute to deny the performer the benefit of the agreement would itself amount to a fraud. Gegg v. Kiefer, supra, at 837. To induce that favor of equity the performance must amount to cogent evidence of a contract to convey, the acts done must be in reliance upon the contract, the performance must so materially change the positions of the contractors that restitution becomes inadequate, and...