Zunino v. Paramore
| Decision Date | 14 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 5287,5287 |
| Citation | 83 Nev. 506,435 P.2d 196 |
| Parties | Louis ZUNINO and Theresa Zunino, Appellants, v. Joseph T. PARAMORE and Margaret T. Paramore, Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from a judgment favoring respondents Paramores who are tenants under a sublease against appellants, land owners. The lessee of the master lease, Mylans (sublessor to Paramores), also had judgment for restitution of the premises and damages against the Paramores, but no appeal is taken therefrom and no issue is presented as to that part of the judgment.
The Zuninos owned certain real property in Reno used primarily as a wedding chapel. They executed a master lease to the property to the Mylans for a period of five years. Subsequently the Mylans subleased this property to the Paramores for two years. After the expiration of the sublease Paramore refused to give up possession of the property to the Mylans. Thereupon, the Mylans initiated an action against the Paramores for unlawful detainer and for damages for the holding over. The defendants, Paramores, brought the Zuninos into the lawsuit as third-party defendants, alleging that the Zuninos had orally promised to evict the Mylans and to give the master lease to the Paramores, that in reliance on that promise, the Paramores substantially improved the property. The Zuninos set up the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense to the third-party complaint.
The trial court found in favor of the Paramores holding that the Paramores, having relied upon the oral representations of the Zuninos, made substantial improvements to the property which took the issue out of the statute of frauds, and that the Zuninos, thus, were estopped from asserting the statute of frauds as a defense. Other determinations, such as damages, are found in the trial court's final judgment. But because we now rule that the trial court erred in its conclusion, we need not consider those problems.
1. The commitment by the Zuninos to give the Paramores a lease for three years and one month was within the statute of frauds, and, thus, is required to be in writing. N.R.S. 111.205, 111.210, 111.220. 1 Williston, Contracts (Students Edition 1933), Chap. 17, Secs. 491, 495; 58 A.L.R. 1015. This is the rule unless elements are found to exist which amount to part performance to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds or which estop a party to raise the statute as a defense. To constitute estoppel the party relying on it must be influenced by the acts or silence of the other and it must appear that the acts or conduct of the party estopped caused the party relying to act as he would not have acted or he cannot complain that he was deceived to his prejudice. Sharon v. Minnock, 6 Nev. 377 (1871); Beck v. Curti, 56 Nev. 72, 45 P.2d 601 (1935); Ford v. Brown, 45 Nev. 202, 200 P. 522 (1921); State ex rel. Thatcher v. Justice Court, 46 Nev. 133, 207 P. 1105 (1922); In re MacDonnell's Estate, 56 Nev. 504, 55 P.2d 834, 57 P.2d 695 (1936); Woods v. Bromley, 69 Nev. 96, 241 P.2d 1103 (1952); Gardner v. Pierce, 22 Nev. 146, 36 P. 782 (1894). See also Harmon v. Tanner Motor Tours, 79 Nev. 4, 16, 377 P.2d 622 (1963). Estoppel or part performance must be proved by some extraordinary measure or quantum of evidence. 4 A.L.R.3rd 361; Gardner v. Pierce, supra; Evans v. Lee, 12 Nev. 393 (1877).
The record is not clear as to how many conversations were had between the Paramores and Zuninos, but there were very few. Although we paraphrase to some extent, all that we can perceive is that Zuninos once complimented the Paramores on how they had improved the place (remodeled the basement downstairs and carpeted the floor) and said, 'You have made so many improvements here you have just got yourselves set up so that maybe you can make some money by the improvements.' He added, 'You have improved the situation and I don't see any need in the world about you ever having to leave.'
Furthermore, Zunino represented to the Paramores that he had legal grounds to cancel the Mylans' lease, but the Paramores made no effort to determine the strength of those grounds, such as consulting legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonnell v. Lawrence
...the first judge. Bonnell's chances of success with this argument are not as great as she seems to assume. Compare Zunino v. Paramore, 83 Nev. 506, 509, 435 P.2d 196, 197 (1967) (partial performance will not overcome the statute of frauds unless “proved by some extraordinary measure or quant......
-
Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
...quantum of evidence.’ " 26 Beverly Glen, LLC v. Wykoff Newberg Corp., 334 Fed.Appx. 62, 64 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Zunino v. Paramore, 83 Nev. 506, 435 P.2d 196, 197 (1967) ). The doctrines apply in cases involving an allegedly binding written agreement. Id. at 64 n. 1. "To constitute estop......
-
Summa Corp. v. Greenspun
...The assertion of the statute by a party to an oral agreement which the law requires to be in writing is not a fraud. Zunino v. Paramore, 83 Nev. 506, 435 P.2d 196 (1967). The finding of the court below in this regard does not determine the applicability of the statute of (c) As noted, the t......
-
Waters v. Weyerhaeuser Mortg. Co.
...by an "extraordinary measure . . . of evidence." Jones v. Barnhart, 89 Nev. 74, 506 P.2d 430, 431 (1973), Quoting Zunino v. Paramore, 83 Nev. 506, 509, 435 P.2d 196, 197 (1967). The Waters have not made that Furthermore, the disclosure statement signed by them upon closing contained the lan......