Opinion ID: 1666961
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Executed or Executory

Text: Dr. Jones invokes the executed-contract exception to the Statute of Frauds. Specifically, she states that the `Statute of Frauds voids only executory contracts, not executed contracts. ... A contract is executed, and not voided by the Statute of Frauds, if the plaintiff has fully performed his obligation to the defendant and sues the defendant to obtain the defendant's performance or the completion of the defendant's performance.' Dr. Jones's brief, at 50 (quoting Ex parte Ramsay, 829 So.2d at 155 (emphasis in Ramsay )). She argues that she has fully performed her obligations under the agreement by continuing her employment with the University. All that remained was for the University to pay the money. Dr. Jones's brief, at 51. This argument is patently false as it relates to the prospective relief Dr. Jones sought by way of injunction. She sought, and the trial court granted, a judgment requiring the University to immediately raise [her] annual compensation in the amount of $4,995.00, plus any cost of living increase from 1998 until the present time. Thus, by incorporating the second installment of the raise into her current salary in accordance with the oral promise, the trial court ordered the University to pay Dr. Jones for work to be performed in the future. By definition, the contract remains executory as to work Dr. Jones has not yet performed. `[T]he partial performance of a contract, void under the statute of frauds, does not take it from under the influence of the statute, so as to permit a recovery under the contract for any part of the contract remaining executory.' Ex parte Ramsay, 829 So.2d at 155 (quoting Farrow v. Burns, 18 Ala.App. 350, 351, 92 So. 236, 237 (1921)). Because the prospective relief awarded by the trial court was based on a portion of the contract that was manifestly executory, that portion of the judgment was barred, as a matter of law, by the Statute of Frauds. We need not determine whether the Statute of Frauds also barred the retrospective relief awarded, because that portion of the judgment was barred by sovereign immunity.