The land was adjudicated to belong to Respondents by virtue of enforcement of the compromise settlement agreement. Accordingly, Respondents' claim that they had title to the land by virtue of adverse possession is without merit. Appellants maintain that Respondents are not entitled to equitable relief from the mandate of the Statute of Frauds because they did not act in reliance on the compromise settlement in such a way as to materially change their positions, such that restitution is inadequate. Although the Statute of Frauds is a legal justification for refusing to perform a verbal agreement for conveyance of realty, courts of equity will enforce such oral contracts to prevent gross injustice or deep-seated wrong to one of the contracting parties. We find that Respondents' position has not been so materially changed so as to cause gross injustice.
Restitution is an adequate remedy for the particular damages sustained by Respondents.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed.