In Texas, agreements for the sale of real property fall under the statute of frauds. This means they must be in a written agreement signed by the person against whom enforcement is sought. This can be found in Texas Business and Commerce Code sections 26.01(a), 26.01(b)(4).
... (a) A promise or agreement described in Subsection (b) of this section is not enforceable unless the promise or agreement, or a memorandum of it, is
(1) in writing; and
(2) signed by the person to be charged with the promise or agreement or by someone lawfully authorized to sign for him.
(b) Subsection (a) of this section applies to:
(1) a promise by an executor or administrator to answer out of his own estate for any debt or damage due from his testator or intestate;
(2) a promise by one person to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another person;
(3) an agreement made on consideration of marriage or on consideration of nonmarital conjugal cohabitation;
(4) a contract for the sale of real estate; ...
Under Texas case law, the agreement must contain the essential elements of the agreement so that the court can determine what exactly the agreement was without resorting to oral testimony.
“The statute of frauds requires that a memorandum of an agreement, in addition to being signed by the party to be charged, must be complete within itself in every material detail and contain all of the essential elements of the agreement so that the contract can be ascertained from the writings without resorting to oral testimony.” Sterrett v. Jacobs, 118 S.W.3d 877, 879-80 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied).
Rarely, the court might make an equitable exception. But these situations are limited, because widespread application of this exception would effectively eliminate the rule.
“Under the partial performance exception to the statute of frauds, contracts that have been partly performed, but do not meet the requirements of the statute of frauds, may be enforced in equity if denial of enforcement would amount to a virtual fraud.” Hairston v. SMU, 441 S.W.3d 327, 336 (Tex.App.—Dallas 2013, pet. denied).
However, this case did not involve the sale of real estate. In addition, that partial performance must meet certain standards.
"The performance a party relies on to remove a parol agreement from the statute of frauds 'must be such as could have been done with no other design than to fulfill the particular agreement sought to be enforced.'" Exxon Corp. v. Breezevale Ltd., 82 S.W.3d 429, 439-40 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2002, pet. denied).
In the given situation, more information and further research would be required. But generally speaking, to prevent the seller from taking back the house, the buyer would need a written agreement for the sale of the home that satisfied the statute of frauds. An equitable exception might be a possibility depending on the particular circumstances, but such an exception is not common.
RSS Feed
