Property

Brief

Hickey v. Green

Procedural History:

• Trial court granted specific performance for Hickey.
• Appealed.
• Remanded

Facts:

• Green owns a lot in the Manomet section of Plymouth.
• In July 1980 she advertised it for sale.
• Hickey and his wife discussed with Green purchasing the lot on the 11^th and 12^th of July.
• On July 12^th, Green accepted a deposit check of $500 which was marked at “Deposit on Lot subject to a variance”.
• Green held on to the check and did not fill in the payee’s name and neither cashed it or endorsed it.
• Hickey stated that his intention was to sell his home and build on Green’s lot.
• Relying on the arrangement, Hickey sold his property.
• July 24^th, Green told Hickey that she no longer wanted to sell her property to him and decided to sell it to another.

Issue:

• Is relief barred by the statute of frauds?

Holding:

• Remanded.

Reasoning:

• A contract for the transfer of an interest in land may be specifically enforced notwithstanding failure to comply with the statute of frauds if it is established that the party seeking enforcement, in reasonable reliance on the contract and on the continuing assent of the party against whom enforcement is sought, has so changed his position that injustice can be avoided only by specific performance.
• Green does not deny the oral contract between her and the Hickeys.
• There is no doubt that Green made a promise by which the Hickeys relied.
• If the enforcement of that agreement still will be sought, or if that agreement has been carried out, the conveyance of the lot by Green should be required now.
• If the circumstances have changed, because it has been two years since the transaction almost took place, the trial court must decide on the remedy.