Opinion ID: 2567473
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The contract is enforceable under the part performance exception to the statute of frauds

Text: ¶ 10 Jolly argues the option agreement is unenforceable because it violates the statute of frauds. The statute of frauds, by its terms, applies to [e]very conveyance of real estate, or any interest therein, and every contract creating or evidencing any encumbrance upon real estate. RCW 64.04.010. Under the statute of frauds, contracts for the sale or conveyance of real property must include a legal description of the property. Key Design Inc. v. Moser, 138 Wash.2d 875, 881, 983 P.2d 653, 993 P.2d 900 (1999). A contract for the sale or conveyance of platted real property must include a description of the property with the correct lot number, block number, addition, city, county, and state. Martin v. Seigel, 35 Wash.2d 223, 229, 212 P.2d 107 (1949). An option to purchase real estate is subject to the statute of frauds. 4 CAROLINE N. BROWN, CORBIN ON CONTRACTS § 17.19, at 490 (rev. ed.1997); Powers v. Hastings, 93 Wash.2d 709, 711 n. 1, 612 P.2d 371 (1980) (noting that a three year lease with an option to purchase real property falls within either the statute of frauds for contracts over one year or the real estate statute); Woolen v. Sloan, 94 Wash. 551, 553, 162 P. 985 (1917) ([t]he option contract, being for real estate, of course was required by the statute of frauds to be in writing); Broadway Hosp. & Sanitarium v. Decker, 47 Wash. 586, 589-90, 92 P. 445 (1907) (applying the statute of frauds to a lease with an option to purchase property). ¶ 11 Part performance removes a contract from the statute of frauds if a party is able to show: (1) delivery and assumption of actual and exclusive possession; (2) payment or tender of consideration; and (3) the making of permanent, substantial and valuable improvements, referable to the contract. Powers, 93 Wash.2d at 717, 612 P.2d 371; Berg v. Ting, 125 Wash.2d 544, 555, 886 P.2d 564 (1995) (applying doctrine of part performance to agreements containing inadequate legal descriptions). A strong case for the application of the part performance doctrine exists where all three factors are established. Berg, 125 Wash.2d at 557, 886 P.2d 564. ¶ 12 In this case, the contract contains an inadequate legal description of the property. The contract describes the property as Parcel # 3 of Short Plat-8111120215 (7.37 Acres) Section 24 Twp 19N Range 5E. See attached For Full legal description. Ex. 1, ¶ 1. No legal description was attached to the option. The option does not identify the addition or city where the property is located and, consequently, violates the statute of frauds. ¶ 13 The option is enforceable despite the inadequate legal description because all three elements of the part performance doctrine are present. First, Pardee maintained actual and exclusive possession of the property beginning January 18, 2004. Second, Pardee paid $16,000 for the option. Third, the contract provides Pardee with the right to improve the property and testimony established that Pardee made permanent, substantial, valuable improvements to the house. The option contract is enforceable.