Court Opinion

ID: 9716585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:44:46.638541+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:46.994789
License: Public Domain

RATLIFF, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I fully concur in the opinion of Judge Staton, however, I write separately to address a matter which is obvious from the *1040facts and deserves our comment although it in no way affects the decision in this case.
The oral agreement between the Helm-kamps and Kain, which forms the consideration for the no-lien addendum, wherein the Helmkamps agreed to make the payments due under the construction contract, constitutes an agreement to answer for the debt of another, and was within the Statute of Frauds. IND.CODE § 82-2-1-1.
However, no issue of the Statute of Frauds was raised, nor could such issue have been raised by Fordeck. The Statute of Frauds is an issue ordinarily available only to those parties to the agreement to which the statute may apply, and those in privity with them, and may not be invoked by third parties or strangers. 73 Am. Jur.2d Statute of Frauds, §§ 576, 578. Neither can it be invoked by a creditor of one of the parties. Id. § 579. Further, in this case, the oral agreement between the Helmkamps and Kain had been performed by the Helmkamps. Thus, for all of the reasons stated, no Statute of Frauds issue existed in this case.
I make these observations only to make it clear that our decision not be construed as conferring any validity upon such an oral agreement had the Statute of Frauds been available as an issue and applicable under appropriate facts.