McCormick, the administrator of the estate, claims the oral promise is unenforceable under the statute of frauds. Explain whether McCormick is correct.
Halsey, a widower, was living without family or housekeeper in his house in Howell, New York. Burns and his wife claim that Halsey invited them to give up their house and business in Andover, New York, to live in his house and care for him. In return, they allege, he promised them the house and its furniture upon his death. Acting upon this proposal, the Burnses left Andover, moved into Halsey’s house, and cared for him until he died five months later. No deed, will, or memorandum exists to authenticate Halsey’s promise. McCormick, the administrator of the estate, claims the oral promise is unenforceable under the statute of frauds. Explain whether McCormick is correct.
Individual M is accurate as there existed no written agreement between the two individuals, which is a must in Statue of Fraud Rule for the agreement to be valid in case of transfer of any possession.
In some cases, the availability of equity influences the oral agreement, but it happens only if the execution of the relevant contract has been partially done.
In this case, Individual H did not transfer the possession of the house to Individual B in his life. This means that the partial execution of the contract did not happen, and Individual B was never treated as an owner.
Individual M is correct as per the Statute of Fraud Rule. Only written contracts are enforceable in the case of transfer of possession of any specific land.
However, in this case, there was a lack of written agreement between Individuals H and B.