Williams v. Denham

Decision Date04 November 1968
Docket NumberNo. 10407,10407
Citation162 N.W.2d 285,83 S.D. 518
PartiesDaisy Lee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S. J. DENHAM and Nelda Denham, Defendants and Appellants.
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

Donald J. Coleman, Dupree, for plaintiff and respondent.

A. Coe Frankhauser, Gettysburg, for defendants and appellants.

BIEGELMEIER, Judge.

Plaintiff's complaint alleged that on November 20, 1964, she accepted defendant S. J. Denham's oral offer to sell 499 acres of land in Dewey County for $20,000; that thereupon her attorney prepared and mailed two copies of a contract for deed to him with a draft for $5,000 and that on November 30, 1964 he telephoned plaintiff's attorney that he was not going to execute the contract or complete the sale and was returning the contract and draft. It further alleged plaintiff had ordered an abstract at a cost of $177.50 for which she should be reimbursed. The prayer was for specific performance of the contract and reimbursement of the $177.50. Defendants' answer was a general denial, except it admitted ownership of the land and receipt of the contract and draft, alleged their return and set up the Statute of Frauds, SDC 10.0605(3) 1 as a bar. Defendants appeal from the judgment granting specific performance of the oral contract.

The court found plaintiff, through her agent husband Joe Williams, entered into an oral agreement by telephone to purchase the real estate; that thereafter plaintiff prepared a contract for deed incorporating the terms thereof and forwarded it with a draft for the down payment of $5,000 to defendants; that defendants signed the contract but did not deliver it to plaintiff and refused to complete it; that plaintiff in reliance on the oral agreement caused to be sold other lands to raise the funds to complete the contract, ordered abstracts to the land, had a contract drawn and forwarded the down payment; that these acts were consistent with an understanding of sale and inconsistent with any other reasonable explanation thereof; that to allow defendants to renege on their agreement would subject plaintiff to unconscionable hardship and loss, in that amongst other things 'a loss of full utilization of farm equipment by a farm operator is a direct loss and a production loss is also a direct loss.' Defendants' appeal questions the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the Findings of Fact, denial of defendants' proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and error in those entered necessary to support the Judgment. At the outset we mention the Finding set out in quotation marks above. It appeared in the court's opinion and defendants' attorney called attention to its appearance in proposed Finding VI at the hearing on entry of Findings of Fact by indicating he could recall no evidence as to it. Whether it is material may admit of doubt but a careful reading of the transcript shows no support for this Finding or indeed any reference to the subject in the evidence adduced.

The evidence showed Joe Williams, husband of plaintiff, lived at Gettysburg, South Dakota; that on November 19, 1964, claiming to act for plaintiff, he telephoned defendant S. J. Denham who lived in Redding, California with reference to a lease of the land. In the conversation he testified S. J. Denham offered to sell the land for $20,000 cash. Williams said he would call him back which he did that evening advising he could meet his terms. There was discussion of procedures involved and Mr. Williams employed an attorney, not counsel of record, who phoned Denham the next day. That attorney testified Denham talked about the sale through an escrow with a title company, etc.; he agreed to change of terms from $20,000 cash to $5,000 down and the balance in 60 days and that it would be better to order abstracts immediately. The attorney drew up a written contract dated November 20th which plaintiff signed and two copies were mailed to Mr. Denham with a draft for $5,000. A letter advised Denham that the attorney had ordered new abstracts; it requested him to sign the contracts and return one copy to the attorney. Denham received the letter and enclosures November 23rd, signed them sometime thereafter, but then retained all papers until November 30th when Mr. Denham notified plaintiff's attorney by telephone that he had decided not to sell the land and was returning the draft. He returned the draft and destroyed the contracts. The land owned by defendants was in Ziebach County; the contract (and complaint) described it by section, township and range, but stated it to be in Dewey County and the conversation included discussion of this error as the attorney had first ordered abstracts from an abstractor in the wrong county. While plaintiff argues that to establish the 'contract and all the facts in this case' the trial court could believe her two witnesses and disbelieve S. J. Denham, the only witness for defendants, we conclude the undisputed evidence is insufficient to support the Findings necessary to overcome the defense of the Statute of Frauds or authorize the specific performance decree.

The court has held equitable estoppel may prevent a party to an oral agreement from invoking the Statute of Frauds. Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Matson, 68 S.D. 538, 5 N.W.2d 314. There the court set out the elements of proof necessary to invoke such estoppel as '(a) the oral agreement must be established by satisfactory evidence; (b) the party asserting rights under the agreement must have relied thereon and have indicated such reliance by the performance of acts unequivocably...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Biegler v. Kraft
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • February 7, 2013
    ...doctrine of part performance does not spare the Bieglers' claims from the operation of SDCL § 53–8–2(3). See also Williams v. Denham, 83 S.D. 518, 162 N.W.2d 285, 288 (1968) (“Even payment of part of the purchase price is not sufficient in itself to take a case out of the operation of the S......
  • Hahne v. Burr
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • October 26, 2005
    ...to constitute sufficient part performance are actual possession and permanent improvements made on the land." Williams v. Denham, 83 S.D. 518, 523, 162 N.W.2d 285, 288 (1968) (citation omitted). However, in this case Hahne's possession of the land is irrelevant because he was in continued p......
  • Farmers Elevator Co. of Elk Point v. Lyle
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • January 27, 1976
    ...of promissory estoppel. Cf., Skillman v. Lynch, 74 S.D. 212, 50 N.W.2d 641; Shaw v. George, 82 S.D. 62, 141 N.W.2d 405; Williams v. Denham, 83 S.D. 518, 162 N.W.2d 285. We believe that the facts in the instant case warrant the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel as set forth i......
  • Durkee v. Van Well
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • December 4, 2002
    ...on the agreement, to enforce the statute [would] subject such party to unconscionable hardship and loss. Williams v. Denham, 83 S.D. 518, 522, 162 N.W.2d 285, 287 (1968). [¶ 24.] Here, the elements of promissory estoppel were established. First, there was an oral agreement or promise. Van W......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT