Case Name: RUTH HIEGEL DANIEL, Appellant, v. PHILOMENA HIEGEL, Executrix of the Estate of John Maurice Hiegel, Deceased, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1980-05-22
Citations: 96 Nev. 456
Docket Number: No. 12003
Parties: RUTH HIEGEL DANIEL, Appellant, v. PHILOMENA HIEGEL, Executrix of the Estate of John Maurice Hiegel, Deceased, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 456–457

Head Matter:
RUTH HIEGEL DANIEL, Appellant, v. PHILOMENA HIEGEL, Executrix of the Estate of John Maurice Hiegel, Deceased, Respondent.
No. 12003
May 22, 1980
611 P.2d 207
Goodman, Oshins, Brown & Singer, of Las Vegas, for Appellant.
Jolley, Urga & Wirth, of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION
Per Curiam:
On conflicting evidence the district court found that an oral agreement was made between Ruth Hiegel Daniel and her former husband, John Maurice Hiegel, now deceased, pursuant to which Ruth was to convey her interest in Exley House to John for $8600. A promissory note, deed of trust and divorce complaint, apparently executed pursuant to the oral agreement, when considered together constitute a sufficient memorandum of the agreement satisfying the statute of frauds. NRS 111.210(1); Ray Motor Lodge, Inc., v. Shatz, 80 Nev. 114, 390 P.2d 42 (1969); Haspray v. Pasarelli, 79 Nev. 203, 380 P.2d 919 (1963). We do not perceive an appellate issue of merit.
Affirmed.