Opinion ID: 2544799
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Judgment of the Court of Appeals Is Supported By A Different Reason Appearing in the Record.

Text: John raised several issues at the Court of Appeals, which declined to reach them, and has now argued at least some of those issues before this Court as alternative grounds for affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. One of the arguments raised as an alternative groundthat the agreement was unenforceable under the statute of fraudsis dispositive and requires that the judgment of the Court of Appeals be affirmed. As always, questions of law are reviewed de novo. The rule in Kentucky is that any agreement involving real property must be reduced to writing to be enforceable. See KRS 371.010(6) (No action shall be brought to charge any person . . . (6) Upon any contract for the sale of real estate, or any lease thereof for longer than one year . . . unless the promise, contract, agreement, representation, assurance, or ratification, or some memorandum or note thereof, be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by his authorized agent.). Even oral agreements as to both real property and other property not normally covered by the statute of frauds will generally be voided in their entirety. For example, contracts to devise property in general . . . are generally regarded as entire, and not severable, unless a contrary intention appears from the contract, or unless the consideration for the devise of real property is separate and severable from the consideration for the bequest of personalty. Bitzer v. Moock's Ex'r & Tr., 271 S.W.2d 877, 879 (Ky.1954). Absent any countervailing considerations here, the agreement at issue is deemed entire; the real estate portions of the agreement are not severable. Id. It is the long-standing rule in this Commonwealth that an action on an oral contract to devise property which includes real estate is barred by the Statute of Frauds. Id. (emphasis added). As such, the whole agreement, not being in writing, is unenforceable. The jury in this case found that the agreement covered the entire estate, not just the stocks. This, of course, meant that it included the decedent's house. As such, the agreement found to exist by the jury was not enforceable. Thus, this Court concludes that the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court on the ground that no valid agreement had been reached because of a failure of consideration, reached the correct result but for the wrong reason.