Smith v. Cox
Decision Date | 06 May 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 37181,37181 |
Citation | 277 S.E.2d 512,247 Ga. 563 |
Parties | SMITH et al. v. COX. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
G. M. Adcock, Adcock & Willard, Rossville, for Harvey J. smith et al.
Burton Brown, Brown, Harriss & Hartman, Rossville, for J. Hassel Cox.
Appellee brought an action for a writ of possession. Appellants counterclaimed, alleging that the parties have entered into a "lease-purchase" agreement resting partly in writing and partly in parol. The trial court, ruling that the alleged agreement was unenforceable on account of the statute of frauds, refused to allow oral testimony as to the terms of the alleged contract and directed a verdict in favor of appellee. We reverse.
On February 7, 1962, the parties entered into the following agreement, entitled "Lease": The agreement is written on paper bearing the letterhead "Cox Coal & Supply Co." Appellee Cox admits having extensive experience in real estate transactions. Appellants, a couple of limited means, have almost none. The written agreement bears the signature of a witness.
There is no doubt that the alleged agreement fails to satisfy the requirements of the statute of frauds relating to contracts for the sale of real estate. See Wiley v. Tom Howell & Associates, Inc., 154 Ga.App. 235, 267 S.E.2d 816 (1980); Code Ann. § 20-401(4). "The statute requires that every essential element of the sale must be expressed in the writing." Pindar, Ga. Real Estate Law 575, § 18-8. "A contract for the sale of land, which is partly in writing and partly in parol, is not enforceable, by reason of the statute of frauds." Thompson v. Colonial Trust Co., 35 Ga.App. 12(1), 131 S.E. 923 (1926).
Appellants contend, however, that the barrier of the statute of frauds has been removed by part performance of the alleged agreement and that the trial court erred in refusing to admit parol evidence of the agreement's terms. At trial, appellants offered testimony that the $70 monthly payments were to be applied to the purchase price of the property. It is undisputed that appellants moved into the residence located on the property and lived there a number of years. The residence needed extensive repair work. However, appellants were financially unable to make the necessary repairs and they moved elsewhere, using the residence as a storage facility. Nonetheless, they continued making the $70 monthly payments to appellee until he filed this action, a period of approximately nine years. Appellee continued to accept the payments even after he became aware that the house was being used for storage purposes rather than as a residence.
Harris v. Underwood, 208 Ga. 247, 249, 66 S.E.2d 332 (1951); Sellers v. Hall, 153 Ga.App. 189, 265 S.E.2d 81 (1980).
Appellee, citing Grist v. Foster, 246 Ga. 565, 273 S.E.2d 403 (1980), argues that, as a matter of law, appellants have failed to demonstrate such part performance as would remove the alleged agreement from the statute of frauds. We believe, however, that Grist is distinguishable from the case at bar.
In Grist, supra at 566, we held: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stoker v. Bellemeade, LLC
...for sale of lands, or any interest in, or concerning lands" must be in writing to be enforceable. OCGA § 13-5-30(4); see Smith v. Cox, 247 Ga. 563, 277 S.E.2d 512 (1981); OCGA §§ 13-5-31; The Stokers contend that, when members of the Westbury group separately developed other parcels in the ......
-
Stamps v. Ford Motor Co.
...in writing and partly in parol...." Thompson v. Colonial Trust Co., 35 Ga.App. 12, 13, 131 S.E. 921 (1926); see also Smith v. Cox, 247 Ga. 563, 277 S.E.2d 512 (1981). Accordingly, the Court will grant defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' wrongful foreclosure 7......
-
Tench v. GALAXY APPLIANCE & FURNITURE SALES
...performance of the oral agreement and possession of the land, taking such agreement outside the Statute of Frauds. Smith v. Cox, 247 Ga. 563, 564, 277 S.E.2d 512 (1981). (d) Estoppel by silence has no application to this case, because such doctrine applies where silence amounts to construct......
-
Breckenridge Creste Apartments v. Citicorp
...in writing, and a written memorandum cannot depend upon parol evidence to supply any necessary terms of the contract. Smith v. Cox, 247 Ga. 563, 277 S.E.2d 512, 513 (1981) (part performance exception to the statute of frauds affirmed on an oral and written lease-purchase agreement for the s......