Opinion ID: 901580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Sufficiency of the description of the subject matter

Text: [¶23.] The language of an assignment must describe the subject matter of the assignment. Northstream I, 2005 SD 61, ¶ 15, 697 NW2d at 766. The Minutes provide only a general description of the subject matter of the assignment. The description consists of the remaining assets of Security. The trial court found that the Minutes did not describe any asset to be assigned or the subject matter of the assignment and concluded that the remaining assets language did not satisfy the statute of frauds. [¶24.] The weight of authorities suggest that the statute of frauds does not render a general written description of the subject matter of an assignment unenforceable where the more specific description is proved through extrinsic evidence. The description of the subject matter of an assignment need not be done with any greater particularity than is actually necessary, with the aid of surrounding circumstances. 6 AmJur2d Assignments § 117. The sufficiency of the description of the subject matter of the assignment var[ies] to some extent with the facts of an individual case[,] if the description is sufficiently definite that, armed with it and aided by competent extraneous evidence, parol or otherwise, the property covered may with certainty be identified, the description is sufficient. Northwestern Nat'l Bank of Minneapolis v. A.M. Cameron Co., 212 F2d 484, 485 (1954). However, if the description is so inherently vague and indefinite that this may not be done then extraneous evidence will not supply the deficiency. Id. [¶25.] This is consistent with our case law allowing parol evidence to provide the specific description of the subject matter of a contract required to be in writing. A general description of the land which is the subject matter of the contract is sufficient, and parol evidence may be admitted to provide the more particular description. Jacobson v. Gulbransen, 2001 SD 33, ¶ 15, 623 NW2d 84, 89 (citing Amdahl v. Lowe, 471 NW2d 771, 775 (SD 1991)). The Jacobson court further stated: The agreement itself need not be the writing relied upon, a memorandum evidencing the obligation is sufficient. SDCL 53-8-2. 'The memorandum serves to furnish written evidence of the obligation to be enforced against the party who subscribes his name to the memorandum; that is, a memorandum is not required to make a contract but merely to evidence in writing that a contract has been entered into.' The memorandum need not embody the exact terms of the contract; 'it is sufficient that the substance of a contract for the purchase of real property is inferred from the writing[.]' Id. (citing Wiggins v. Shewmake, 374 NW2d 111, 114 (SD 1985)). [¶26.] The Minutes evidence that Security was assigning all its assets to Northstream. The testimony at trial was undisputed that Security and Northstream both understood that these assets included the loans which were not sold to First National, including the 1804 Store loan. This evidence satisfies both the statute of frauds and the requirement for a valid assignment to adequately describe the subject matter of the assignment. There is no fatal ambiguity if the contract terms are sufficiently certain to make the acts required of each party clearly ascertainable. Amdahl, 471 NW2d at 775. [¶27.] The trial court erred in its legal conclusion that the Minutes failed to adequately describe the subject matter of the assignment. Further, there are no disputed facts as to the specific assets assigned to Northstream to create any issue of fact, and Northstream is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this issue.