Jasmin v. Alberico

Supreme Court of Vermont · 1977 · Contracts

ContractsSpecific performanceStatute of FraudsPart performanceoral land contractspecific performanceStatute of Fraudspart performance

Facts

Arthur Jasmin purchased a house after defendant John Alberico could not obtain financing, proposing to deed it to Alberico whenever Alberico repaid the $2,000 down payment. The Albericos moved in, made the mortgage-related payments, taxes, water rent, and credit life insurance premiums, and the arrangement was never reduced to writing. After Arthur Jasmin died, the insurance paid off the mortgage, and John Alberico offered plaintiff $2,000 for a deed, but plaintiff refused. The Albericos had also made repairs and minor improvements to the property while in possession.

Issue

Whether defendants could obtain specific performance of an unwritten agreement to convey land when their claimed part performance consisted primarily of possession, money payments, and repairs or improvements made while occupying the property.

Rule

A party seeking specific performance of an oral contract to convey real estate bears a double burden: first, to establish an agreement enforceable despite the Statute of Frauds through part performance; and second, to satisfy the standards for specific enforcement. Part performance is sufficient only when the claimant, in reliance on the oral agreement, has changed position so substantially that the parties cannot be restored to reasonable equivalence to their former condition; money payments on the purchase, even coupled with possession, are not enough, and improvements qualify only if they are substantial and irretrievable.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Burlington, Vermont, Naomi Reed orally agreed to sell a duplex to Victor Lane for $180,000. Victor moved in immediately and for three years paid Naomi monthly amounts equal to the mortgage, taxes, and insurance, but nothing was ever put in writing.

If Naomi later refuses to convey title and Victor seeks specific performance, which is the strongest argument against enforcement?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a party seeking specific performance of an oral land contract bears a double burden, beginning with showing enforceability despite the Statute of Frauds through part performance. Money payments on the purchase, even when coupled with possession, are not enough because the injury is adequately compensable in money. Therefore Victor's occupancy and payment history do not by themselves take the agreement out of the Statute of Frauds.