Court Opinion

ID: 9755630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:44:50.317428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:09.771779
License: Public Domain

JOHN E. PARRISH, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result. In my opinion this appeal warrants little discussion. The jury found, based on the instructions it received, that the parties had an enforceable agreement. The agreement was partially in writing and partially oral. The written part is a one-page document between a highway construction contractor and a landowner. It acknowledges that the contractor removed various materials from the right-of-way of a highway construction site and that the landowner was giving permission for the waste materials to be deposited on his land. It states:
THEREFORE it is agreed between the parties hereto that the aforementioned various waste products, deleterious materials and debris may be deposited on the [landowner’s] land and that said [landowner] shall make no claim for damages from the Contractor, his agents, subcontractors or the Missouri State Highway Commission consequent to such deposit.
*607According to the testimony that supports the verdict rendered, the oral part of the agreement was that the contractor would construct a waterway and building pad suitable for a commercial building on the landowner’s property where the materials were to be deposited. Because the agreement was partially written and partially oral, for purposes of determining if it satisfies the statute of frauds, it is considered an oral agreement. Frostwood Drugs, Inc. v. Fischer & Frichtel Const. Co., 352 S.W.2d 694, 698 (Mo.1961); Quint v. Kingsbury, 289 S.W. 667, 669 (Mo.App.1927). Appellant argues that because the materials deposited on the land included dirt, the agreement was for the sale of land; that, therefore, § 432.010, RSMo 1994, required the agreement to be in writing in order to be enforced.
Appellant’s argument, under the facts of this case, defies logic. The agreement on which the lawsuit that is the subject of this appeal is based did not give the landowner on whose property dirt and other debris was to be deposited a right to remove anything from anyone else’s real estate. It is, therefore, unlike the agreements in the timber and mining eases on which appellant relies. The agreement in this case was not for the sale of real estate. It was for the construction of a waterway and building pad suitable for a commercial building. For those reasons, I concur in the decision to affirm the judgment.