Opinion ID: 2207252
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Statute of Frauds Issue.

Text: At trial, the district court relied upon Iowa Code section 622.32 (1987), our statute of frauds, and ruled that evidence of the oral agreement was inadmissible. That section provides: Except when otherwise specially provided, no evidence of the following enumerated contracts is competent, unless it be in writing and signed by the party charged or by the party's authorized agent: . . . . 3. Those for the creation or transfer of any interest in lands, except leases for a term not exceeding one year. The brothers contend on appeal that (1) the alleged agreement to reconvey is not subject to the statute of frauds, (2) the Citizens' State Bank is charged with notice of the brothers' claim of title, and (3) the district court erred in failing to find fraud on the part of Harry. Because we resolve the question of the admissibility of the oral agreement on the basis of part performance and evidence by the adverse party, it is not necessary to address the issue concerning fraud. The brothers rely on three arguments on the statute of frauds issue: (a) that the alleged oral agreement to reconvey was not a contract for the sale of land and therefore was not subject to the statute of frauds; (b) that they had partially performed their contract, thereby removing it from the statute of frauds; and (c) that parol evidence is permitted to establish an agreement for the creation of an interest in real estate where it is established by the evidence of an adverse party. Under our statute of frauds, it is well established that a party who partially performs under the agreement may avoid the impact of the statute of frauds and introduce evidence of the oral contract. See, e.g., Recker v. Gustafson, 279 N.W.2d 744, 749 (Iowa 1979); Gilbert v. Plowman, 218 Iowa 1345, 1348-50, 256 N.W. 746, 747-48 (1934). This is also in accordance with the general rule. See 73 Am.Jur.2d Statute of Frauds § 397, at 21-23 (1974). The brothers in this case performed their part of the alleged oral agreement by conveying their remainder interests in the land. This was sufficient performance to take the alleged oral agreement from the operation of the statute of frauds. The brothers also contend that Harry admitted the oral contract, and for that reason, it may be established notwithstanding the statute of frauds. Parol evidence establishing an agreement for the creation of an interest in real estate may be admitted where the agreement is established by oral evidence of the adverse party. See Meylor v. Brown, 281 N.W.2d 632, 634 (Iowa 1979) (statute of frauds under Uniform Commercial Code); Roth v. Ross, 256 Iowa 326, 333, 126 N.W.2d 369, 374 (1964). Although Harry disputed the fact at trial, there was some evidence in the record that he, at least partially, admitted an agreement to reconvey. The trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence of the alleged oral agreement. When the proffered evidence is considered, there is sufficient evidence to allow a fact finder to find an agreement to reconvey.