466 So. 2d 922 (Ala. 1985)
Roy Smith and his twin brother Ray Smith became involved in a dispute over land ownership that originated with acquisitions in the 1940s and 1950s.1 Ray Smith purchased an 80-acre rectangular tract in 1943.2 In 1950, Ray, Roy, and their mother obtained joint title to a 42-acre tract positioned cattycornered southwest of Ray's 80 acres.3 In 1960, Ray and their mother transferred their interests in the 42-acre tract to Roy.4 This allowed Roy to mortgage the property and acquire an additional 80-acre tract north of the 42 acres and west of Ray's original holding.5
The brothers differed on the purpose behind the 1960 conveyance of the 42-acre tract.6 Ray maintained that it served only to help Roy finance the northern 80-acre purchase, with the understanding that Roy would later transfer half of the 42 acres back to Ray.7 Roy asserted that the transfer formed part of their parents' plan for the twins to achieve equal land ownership through mutual conveyances of half their respective parcels.8
On December 30, 1963, Roy conveyed about 20 acres from the 42-acre tract to Ray.9 Roy alleged that this transfer occurred under an oral agreement whereby Ray would convey the northern half of his 80-acre tract to Roy in exchange.10 Ray denied entering into any such agreement.11 Seventeen years later, in May 1981, Roy initiated a lawsuit against Ray seeking specific performance of the alleged oral contract.12
The case proceeded to a bench trial without a jury, resulting in a judgment for Roy.13 Ray then appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama, raising three grounds of error related to the enforcement of the oral contract.14
Whether the trial court erred in failing to hold that the oral contract was barred by the Statute of Frauds?15
The Alabama Statute of Frauds provides that every contract for the sale of lands is void unless the agreement is in writing. The writing must express the consideration and be subscribed by the party to be charged.16 An exception exists when the purchase money or a portion thereof is paid and the purchaser is put in possession of the land by the seller.17 To satisfy the part performance exception, the acts of possession must be clear and definite and referable exclusively to the contract.18 The possession must be notorious and exclusive rather than referable to a domestic relationship or the legal title.19
Yes. Roy's use of the 80-acre tract remained unchanged from his prior farming, clearing, and grazing activities after the conveyance on December 30, 1963, the date of the alleged oral contract.20 Roy testified that he used the land just like it was his own all the time both before and after the contract date.21
The twin brothers' family history of joint land dealings supplies an alternative explanation for the possession rendering it referable to their domestic relationship rather than the oral contract.22 Ray retained legal title to the 80-acre tract so the law refers possession to him and the possession was therefore neither notorious nor exclusive.23
The trial court erred in failing to hold that the oral contract was barred by the Statute of Frauds.24