The daughter argues that the letter satisfies the statute of frauds, making the contract enforceable. Who gets the farm? Explain.
When Mr. McClam died, he left the family farm, heavily mortgaged, to his wife and children. To save the farm from foreclosure, Mrs. McClam planned to use insurance proceeds and her savings to pay off the debts. She was unwilling to do so, however, unless she had full ownership of the property. Mrs. McClam wrote her daughter, stating that the daughter should deed over her interest in the family farm to her mother and promising that all the children would inherit the farm equally upon their mother’s death. The letter further explained that if foreclosure occurred, each child would receive very little, but if they complied with their mother’s plan, each would eventually receive a valuable property interest upon her death. Finally, the letter stated that all the other children had agreed to this plan. Consequently, the daughter also agreed. Years later, Mrs. McClam tries to convey the farm to her son Donald. The daughter challenges, arguing that the mother is contractually bound to convey the land equally to all of the children. Donald says this was an oral agreement to sell land and is unenforceable. The daughter argues that the letter satisfies the statute of frauds, making the contract enforceable. Who gets the farm? Explain.
The decision would be in favor of the daughter, and the farm would be equally divided as the letter signed by Person M states the same.
In this case the settlement may be in support of the daughter, and state that all children may uniformly divide the inherited property upon Person M's death. This is because the letter inscribed by Person M may persuasively recognize the subject matter of the agreement, that is, the farm, which adequately states that the parties to the contract are all Person M's children.