Opinion ID: 618159
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Oral Agreement

Text: Clear and convincing evidence is somewhere between a preponderance of the 6 See supra note 4. 7 The District Court also correctly suggests that even if the SOF did not apply, then Appellant would still have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a breach of the contract or past performance on the contract. However, as discussed below, none of the “agents” providing information for the record recall any such agreement. 6 evidence and “beyond a reasonable doubt.” e.g., Aiello v. Knoll Golf Club, 165 A.2d 531, 534 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1960). We agree with the District Court that the evidence in the record here would not permit a reasonable mind to conclude (or be convinced) that the existence of an oral argument was clear. The test is whether there was sufficient evidence of a “meeting of the minds” to form an agreement. Morton, 849 A.2d at 165. Appellant argues that the record, including drafts and letters regarding the mortgage, supports her claim that the insurance proceeds were intended to pay off the balance of the mortgage upon John Houston’s death. Appellant submits numerous documents and correspondence between various of Appellee’s employees regarding the alleged contract. According to Appellant, those letters and emails show that Appellee bought the insurance in order to pay for the mortgage debt, and that the parties and their agents intended to agree to a binding contract to that end. On the other hand, Appellee contends that no such agreement exists and that she never even discussed the issue with her father. She notes that a 1999 re-certification of the insurance policy involved no modifications or contingencies, and preserved her status as the sole beneficiary. Additionally, Appellee notes that the documents in the record confirm that a writing was required to change the policy, and that none of the drafts were ever signed. Notably, at the time of deposition, neither Appellee nor any of her agents 7 could recollect an agreement.8 The parties both focus on a 1991 letter from James Cinque to Appellee’s former accountant, Robert Ryder. The letter indicated Appellee’s agreement to apply the insurance proceeds to the mortgage balance due, but the letter was not signed. Both Cinque and Ryder testified to a lack of knowledge about that agreement. Similarly, throughout the record, there was discussion regarding the policy, the mortgage, and the potential application of the insurance proceeds to the mortgage, but there is no actual signature by either party and no tangible proof of the parties’ intent. Thus, while drafts of an agreement exist, there was also a period of many years during which the parties had ample opportunity to sign the agreement, but did not do so. While the father-daughter relationship might suggest a casual relationship regarding finances, it can also suggest that if there had been an intent to complete the agreement, it would have been by a writing, as proposed by the attorneys and other agents. See Morton, 849 A.2d at 168 (noting that the “relationship between the parties” is relevant to determining “whether the parties made an agreement by which they intend to be bound.”). Nonetheless, anticipation of a written agreement does not preclude a finding of an oral agreement if the parties’ intent to be bound is clear. McBarron v. Kipling Woods L.L.C., 838 A.2d 490, 491 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004). 8 The District Court also mentioned that the “Korf letter” indicated that John Houston knew that an agreement was necessary, but he still never signed any agreement during a period of over a decade. 8 Therefore, the court must decide whether there is sufficient evidence of the parties’ intent to be bound by an oral agreement. Morton, 849 A.2d at 170-71. Both past dealings and the relationship of the parties can dictate such an intent to agree. Morton, 849 A.2d at 168-69. Appellee denies any such intent, while Appellant suggests that the intent to agree should be inferred because it would be the norm for family members to conduct business in a less formal manner than if they were unrelated. It remains the case, however, that there is no tangible evidence that Appellee intended to finalize an agreement with her father, much less that she came to an oral agreement with him to do so.