Opinion ID: 1958412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the lower court err in refusing to sustain the appellant's affirmative defense based upon the statute of frauds?

Text: The rule is well established that a person may contract to devise his property by will, Anding v. Davis, 38 Miss. 574 (1860), and such a contract is not repugnant to public policy. Price v. Craig, 164 Miss. 42, 143 So. 694 (1932). Accord, Monroe v. Holleman, 185 So.2d 443 (Miss. 1966). However, appellant contends that the statute of frauds, Mississippi Code Annotated section 15-3-1 (1972) bars recovery. The pertinent part of that section follows: An action shall not be brought whereby to charge a defendant or other party: (c) upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or the making of any lease thereof for a longer term than one year; unless in each of said cases, the promise or 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 or signed by some person by him or her thereunto lawfully authorized in writing. In Collin's Estate v. Dunn, 233 Miss. 636, 103 So.2d 425 (1958), the Court held that an oral agreement between the parties to make a will devising property is unenforceable and said: It is generally held that an oral agreement to convey land by will or otherwise is within the statute of frauds, and specific performance of such agreement cannot be enforced. Ellis v. Berry, 145 Miss. 652, 110 So. 211. But this Court has recognized the principle that, when parties make an oral agreement that one is to care for and support the other and that the latter will make compensation therefor and such services are rendered, but not paid for by the latter during his lifetime, the party who has rendered the care and provided the support under such an agreement may recover therefor on the quantum meruit. Ellis v. Berry, supra; First National Bank v. Owen, 177 Miss. 339, 171 So. 4; Hickman v. Slough, 187 Miss. 525, 193 So. 443; In re Estate of Whittington, deceased, 217 Miss. 457, 64 So.2d 580. (233 Miss. at 644-645, 103 So.2d at 430) An action to enforce an oral agreement to devise the lake-house property here would be unenforceable. However, appellee did not seek enforcement of the agreement, but probated the agreement for recovery of the $11,000 indebtedness, which was a consideration for it. Where an action may not be maintained on an oral contract as being within the statute of frauds, or for damages resulting from a breach of such contract, the general rule is that the party breaking the contract will not be permitted to obtain benefits from it to his unjust enrichment. The statute of frauds may not be used to permit one relying on it to enrich himself at the expense of another or to aid in defrauding such other person. 73 Am.Jur.2d Statute of Frauds § 537 at pages 173-174. The trial court correctly declined to sustain the affirmative defense. There being no errors in the trial below, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, BOWLING and HAWKINS, JJ., concur.