Opinion ID: 1855409
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Does the transcript of the May 7, 1998 phone conversation between Rusty and Kathy fall within the statute of frauds?

Text: ¶ 10. The statute of frauds, in relevant part, states that [a]n action shall not be brought whereby to charge a defendant or other party upon any contract for the sale of lands unless the agreement upon which such action may be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith. Miss.Code Ann. § 15-3-1(c) (1972). Any agreement involving an interest in the land would not be binding unless in writing under the statute of frauds. Hennessey v. Wilson, 225 Miss. 366, 370, 83 So.2d 176, 177 (1955). ¶ 11. The Chancellor, in his order enforcing the settlement, did not engage in a detailed analysis of the applicability of the statute of frauds. He merely stated the following: The Court need not address this question. Suffice it to say, if the parties reached an agreement, the lawsuit would thereby be settled. The agreement would not transfer ownership of property but rather only settle the pending litigation. Since the Chancellor did not address the statute of frauds, this Court will also not address that issue, as it is not dispositive on the case sub judice.