Court Opinion

ID: 9710963
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:21:31.255632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:01.455791
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Judge,
concurring:
While I agree with the majority’s opinion, I write separately to reiterate our Supreme Court’s position on the Statute of Frauds’ effect on a parol gift of land. In Rarry *597v. Shimek, 360 Pa. 315, 316-20, 62 A.2d 46, 47-48 (1948), and again in In re Yarnall’s Estate, 376 Pa. 582, 590, 103 A.2d 753, 758 (1954), our Supreme Court stated:
The requisites for the creation of a valid parol gift of land notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds of March 21, 1772, 1 Sm.L. 389, sec. 1, 33 P.S. § 1, have been clearly defined in a multitude of cases. Those requisites are (1) that the evidence of the gift be direct, positive, express and unambiguous; (2) that possession be taken in pursuance of the alleged gift at the time or immediately after it is made, and that such possession be exclusive, open, notorious, adverse and continuous; (3) that the donee make valuable improvements on the property for which compensation in damages would be inadequate, (footnotes omitted)
Cases involving a parol gift of land have not appeared before the courts of our Commonwealth since YarnalVs Estate. Accordingly, I believe it is important to note the continued authority of the aforementioned decisions. As applied instantly, the parol gift of land by the appellant meets the requirements of Rarry and Yarnall's Estate, and thus, the gift does not run afoul of the Statute of Frauds.