Court Opinion

ID: 9654063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:04:50.406211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:05.605504
License: Public Domain

George-Rose Smith, J., dissenting. In my opinion the evidence is insufficient to take this oral contract out of the statute of frauds. The majority hold that since Mrs. Rogers accepted benefits under her husband’s will there was sufficient part performance of the parol- agreement. With this holding I disagree. All the property seems to have been held by Mr. and Mrs. Rogers as tenants by the entirety; or, to say the least, the appellees had the burden of proof and failed to show that it was not so held. The most direct evidence on this point is the testimony of their witness Mitchell, who stated that everything had been acquired during the marriage and was held jointly. The property being held by the entirety, Mrs. Rogers was obviously not accepting benefits under'her husband’s will when she continued in possession and collected the rents; she was simply exercising her rights as OAvner of the fee simple title. Mr. and Mrs. Rogers must be presumed to have knoAm the laAV. They must be taken to have knoAvn that the will of the spouse first to die would be completely ineffective (a fact Avhieh their attorney in substance explained to them), and that there Avould be only a moral, not a legal duty on the part of the survivor to carry out the oral understanding. Mrs. Rogers’ failure to perform her promise Avas doubtless reprehensible, but it did not give rise to any cause of action on the part of the appellees.