Son selling family home despite verbal agreement not to.

[Jplester]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[NIV]

While the state may matter if Louisiana, everywhere else in the U.S. the statute of frauds would require a written agreement to prevent son from selling the family home if he is the owner. That does not mean the verbal agreement is void. Depending on what was promised and what is supposed to be received for that promise, damages may be available even if prevention of the sale is not possible.

 

[latigo]

While the state may matter if Louisiana, everywhere else in the U.S. the statute of frauds would require a written agreement to prevent son from selling the family home if he is the owner. That does not mean the verbal agreement is void. Depending on what was promised and what is supposed to be received for that promise, damages may be available even if prevention of the sale is not possible.

Mmmm? Let me see if I've got this right:

"According to NIV" the statute of frauds requires that an agreement preventing an owner from selling his home must be in writing. It would seem to logically follow then that when such an agreement is purely verbal the owner is free to sell his home.

Nevertheless, for some strange reason (known only to NIV apparently) even when free to do so and the owner sells his home he can still be held liable to the promisee in damages for breach of the verbal agreement because not being in writing does not necessarily mean that it is void.

NIV has yet to reveal to us how a person can be liable in damages for breach of a contract that is supposedly unenforceable as a matter of law because it does not comply with the statute of frauds. (This not to be taken as meaning that the subject "agreement" falls within the statute of frauds because it would not be covered unless by its terms the promisee was to acquire some interest in the land.)

"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance." (George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950)

 

[Zigner]

Mmmm? Let me see if I've got this right:

"According to NIV" the statute of frauds requires that an agreement preventing an owner from selling his home must be in writing. It would seem to logically follow then that when such an agreement is purely verbal the owner is free to sell his home.

Nevertheless, for some strange reason (known only to NIV apparently) even when free to do so and the owner sells his home he can still be held liable to the promisee in damages for breach of the verbal agreement because not being in writing does not necessarily mean that it is void.

NIV has yet to reveal to us how a person can be liable in damages for breach of a contract that is supposedly unenforceable as a matter of law because it does not comply with the statute of frauds. (This not to be taken as meaning that the subject "agreement" falls within the statute of frauds because it would not be covered unless by its terms the promisee was to acquire some interest in the land.)

"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance." (George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950)

I guess you decided to bash another poster whilst not comprehending the post. Par.

 

[NIV]

Mmmm? Let me see if I've got this right:

"According to NIV" the statute of frauds requires that an agreement preventing an owner from selling his home must be in writing. It would seem to logically follow then that when such an agreement is purely verbal the owner is free to sell his home.

Nevertheless, for some strange reason (known only to NIV apparently) even when free to do so and the owner sells his home he can still be held liable to the promisee in damages for breach of the verbal agreement because not being in writing does not necessarily mean that it is void.

NIV has yet to reveal to us how a person can be liable in damages for breach of a contract that is supposedly unenforceable as a matter of law because it does not comply with the statute of frauds. (This not to be taken as meaning that the subject "agreement" falls within the statute of frauds because it would not be covered unless by its terms the promisee was to acquire some interest in the land.)

"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance." (George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950)

We can't really discuss the matter without the state. I mean, if it were CA, we might look to well established law like in Zimmerman v. Bank of America, 191 Cal. App. 2d 55 (1961):

If, then, the action did not originally require the relationship to be held together by the mortar of a contract at all, it surely does not currently demand the stronger mixture of an enforceable contract. Again we quote the learned Prosser: "Accordingly, it usually is held that contracts which are voidable by reason of the statute of frauds, formal defects, lack of consideration, lack of mutuality, or even uncertainty of terms, still afford a basis for a tort action when the defendant interferes with their performance." (P. 726; footnotes omitted.)

It is, therefore, not surprising that many cases, embracing early as well as later pronouncements, hold that the action does not fail because the subject contract is not enforceable under the statute of frauds.

 

[latigo]

We can't really discuss the matter without the state. I mean, if it were CA, we might look to well established law like in Zimmerman v. Bank of America, 191 Cal. App. 2d 55 (1961):

You have grossly misrepresented the California Appellate Court case of Zimmerman vs. Bank of America. Obviously because you don't understand it. Because nether it nor any other case law supports your anomalous and deviant claim that a contract that is unenforceable by law can nevertheless serve to sustain a cause of action for breach of that contract

. . .depending upon what was promised and what is supposed to be received for that promise.

Zimmerman WAS NOT A LAWSUIT TO SEEKING DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT! Nor for any so-called promises or anticipated benefits relating to a contract.

The cause of action was founded in tort for the alleged malicious interference with a contractual relationship and was filed against Bank of America that was not a party to the contract. *

What Zimmerman does stand for is that a cause of action for the malicious interference with a contractual relationship does not fail simply because the contractual relationship fails. That is "it does not disintegrate because it relates to a contract not written, or an advantage not articulated in a valid contract. "

"The nature of the tort does not vary with the legal strength or enforceability of the relation disrupted. The actionable wrong lies in the inducement to break the contract or sever the relationship, Not in the kind of contract or relation so disrupted, whether written, oral or not enforceable."


[*] The clients were also named in the suit as conspiring with Bank of America, but not as parties to the invalid unwritten agreement to pay Zimmerman a real estate commission but as joint tortfeasors.

 

[quincy]

...

"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance." (George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950)

I have always liked that Shaw quote. It seems an especially important warning with today's abundance of fake news.

For what it's worth, I agree with your reading of Zimmerman.

 

[NIV]

I have always liked that Shaw quote. It seems an especially important warning with today's abundance of fake news.

For what it's worth, I agree with your reading of Zimmerman.

I might too, if I cared. The portion quoted was not the holding but a statement of long settled law.

What of the sole proposition (stated by me twice) that the exact same facts that don't give rise to an enforceable contract because of the statute of frauds can still be actionable? It seems Latigo is claiming it is not possible.

 

[quincy]

I might too, if I cared. The portion quoted was not the holding but a statement of long settled law.

What of the sole proposition (stated by me twice) that the exact same facts that don't give rise to an enforceable contract because of the statute of frauds can still be actionable? It seems Latigo is claiming it is not possible.

I said what I agreed with. I will wait for the name of Jplester's state before parting with two cents.