California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 1624 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party’s agent:

(1)An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof.

(2)A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another, except in the cases provided for in Section 2794.

(3)An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; such an agreement, if made by an agent of the party sought to be charged, is invalid, unless the authority of the agent is in writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged.

(4)An agreement authorizing or employing an agent, broker, or any other person to purchase or sell real estate, or to lease real estate for a longer period than one year, or to procure, introduce, or find a purchaser or seller of real estate or a lessee or lessor of real estate where the lease is for a longer period than one year, for compensation or a commission.

(5)An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed during the lifetime of the promisor.

(6)An agreement by a purchaser of real property to pay an indebtedness secured by a mortgage or deed of trust upon the property purchased, unless assumption of the indebtedness by the purchaser is specifically provided for in the conveyance of the property.

(7)A contract, promise, undertaking, or commitment to loan money or to grant or extend credit, in an amount greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), not primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, made by a person engaged in the business of lending or arranging for the lending of money or extending credit. For purposes of this section, a contract, promise, undertaking, or commitment to loan money secured solely by residential property consisting of one to four dwelling units shall be deemed to be for personal, family, or household purposes.

(b)Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a):

(1)An agreement or contract that is valid in other respects and is otherwise enforceable is not invalid for lack of a note, memorandum, or other writing and is enforceable by way of action or defense, provided that the agreement or contract is a qualified financial contract as defined in paragraph (2) and one of the following apply:

(A)There is, as provided in paragraph (3), sufficient evidence to indicate that a contract has been made.

(B)The parties thereto by means of a prior or subsequent written contract, have agreed to be bound by the terms of the qualified financial contract from the time they reached agreement (by telephone, by exchange of electronic messages, or otherwise) on those terms.

(2)For purposes of this subdivision, a “qualified financial contract” means an agreement as to which each party thereto is other than a natural person and that is any of the following:

(A)For the purchase and sale of foreign exchange, foreign currency, bullion, coin, or precious metals on a forward, spot, next-day value or other basis.

(B)A contract (other than a contract for the purchase of a commodity for future delivery on, or subject to the rules of, a contract market or board of trade) for the purchase, sale, or transfer of any commodity or any similar good, article, service, right, or interest that is presently or in the future becomes the subject of a dealing in the forward contract trade, or any product or byproduct thereof, with a maturity date more than two days after the date the contract is entered into.

(C)For the purchase and sale of currency, or interbank deposits denominated in United States dollars.

(D)For a currency option, currency swap, or cross-currency rate swap.

(E)For a commodity swap or a commodity option (other than an option contract traded on, or subject to the rules of, a contract market or board of trade).

(F)For a rate swap, basis swap, forward rate transaction, or an interest rate option.

(G)For a security-index swap or option, or a security or securities price swap or option.

(H)An agreement that involves any other similar transaction relating to a price or index (including, without limitation, any transaction or agreement involving any combination of the foregoing, any cap, floor, collar, or similar transaction with respect to a rate, commodity price, commodity index, security or securities price, security index, other price index, or loan price).

(I)An option with respect to any of the foregoing.

(3)There is sufficient evidence that a contract has been made in any of the following circumstances:

(A)There is evidence of an electronic communication (including, without limitation, the recording of a telephone call or the tangible written text produced by computer retrieval), admissible in evidence under the laws of this state, sufficient to indicate that in the communication a contract was made between the parties.

(B)A confirmation in writing sufficient to indicate that a contract has been made between the parties and sufficient against the sender is received by the party against whom enforcement is sought no later than the fifth business day after the contract is made (or any other period of time that the parties may agree in writing) and the sender does not receive, on or before the third business day after receipt (or the other period of time that the parties may agree in writing), written objection to a material term of the confirmation. For purposes of this subparagraph, a confirmation or an objection thereto is received at the time there has been an actual receipt by an individual responsible for the transaction or, if earlier, at the time there has been constructive receipt, which is the time actual receipt by that individual would have occurred if the receiving party, as an organization, had exercised reasonable diligence. For the purposes of this subparagraph, a “business day” is a day on which both parties are open and transacting business of the kind involved in that qualified financial contract that is the subject of confirmation.

(C)The party against whom enforcement is sought admits in its pleading, testimony, or otherwise in court that a contract was made.

(D)There is a note, memorandum, or other writing sufficient to indicate that a contract has been made, signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by its authorized agent or broker.

For purposes of this paragraph, evidence of an electronic communication indicating the making in that communication of a contract, or a confirmation, admission, note, memorandum, or writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states one or more material terms agreed upon, as long as the evidence provides a reasonable basis for concluding that a contract was made.

(4)For purposes of this subdivision, the tangible written text produced by telex, telefacsimile, computer retrieval, or other process by which electronic signals are transmitted by telephone or otherwise shall constitute a writing, and any symbol executed or adopted by a party with the present intention to authenticate a writing shall constitute a signing. The confirmation and notice of objection referred to in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) may be communicated by means of telex, telefacsimile, computer, or other similar process by which electronic signals are transmitted by telephone or otherwise, provided that a party claiming to have communicated in that manner shall, unless the parties have otherwise agreed in writing, have the burden of establishing actual or constructive receipt by the other party as set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3).

(c)This section does not apply to leases subject to Division 10 (commencing with Section 10101) of the Commercial Code.

(d)An electronic message of an ephemeral nature that is not designed to be retained or to create a permanent record, including, but not limited to, a text message or instant message format communication, is insufficient under this title to constitute a contract to convey real property, in the absence of a written confirmation that conforms to the requirements of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 470 cases (65 in the last 5 years), 1906–2026 · leading case: Sterling v. Taylor, 152 P.3d 420 (Cal. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sterling v. Taylor, 152 P.3d 420 (Cal. 2007). · cites it 8× “" (Civ.Code, § 1624.) In this case, the Court of Appeal held that a memorandum regarding the sale of several apartment buildings was sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds.”

In Re Marriage of Benson, 116 P.3d 1152 (Cal. 2005). · cites it 4× “Section 852(a) does not operate like the general statute of frauds (Civ.Code, § 1624, subd. (a) (Civil Code section 1624(a))), in which the requirement of a basic writing is subject to an implied exception for "part performance" of the contract's terms.”

Secrest v. Sec. Nat'l Mortg. Loan Trust 2002-2, 167 Cal. App. 4th 544 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “We conclude the January 2002 Forbearance Agreement is unenforceable under the statute of frauds, Civil Code section 1624. The January 2002 Forbearance Agreement constitutes a modification of the note and deed of trust.”

Riley v. Bear Creek Plan. Comm., 551 P.2d 1213 (Cal. 1976). · cites it 6× “2d 471, 476 [ 216 P.2d 15 ]; Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed.”

Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 765 P.2d 373 (Cal. 1988). · cites it 2× “The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend on two grounds: that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to give rise to such contract, and that enforcement of any such contract would be barred by the statute of frauds.”

In Re Marriage of Assemi, 872 P.2d 1190 (Cal. 1994). · cites it 4× “(Civ. Code, § 1624; see Nicholson v. Barab, supra, 233 Cal.”

Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter, 444 P.3d 97 (Cal. 2019). “" This argument is premised on defendants' position that Schechter's signature could not convey an intent to be bound by the document he signed, which included provisions specifically applicable to counsel.”

Schumm v. Berg, 231 P.2d 39 (Cal. 1951). · cites it 8× “, § 1973(2); Civ. Code, § 1624(2)). It is asserted that Beery promised to answer for the obligation of Schumm to support plaintiff.”

Sanowicz v. Bacal, 234 Cal. App. 4th 1027 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “to purchase or sell real estate” is invalid if it is not in writing (Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. (a)(4); see Iusi v.”

Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. Am. Asphalt S., Inc., 388 P.3d 800 (Cal. 2017). “4 Civil Code section 1624, subdivision (a)(4) (formerly subd.”

Pietrobon v. Libarle, 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2369 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “He further argues that if there was a written agreement, it did not satisfy the statute of frauds (Civ. Code, § 1624, subd. (a)) because he had never signed it.”

Citizens for Covenant Compliance v. Anderson, 906 P.2d 1314 (Cal. 1995). · cites it 2× “[6] Neither the CC&R's nor the deeds themselves were subscribed by the buyers. "We recognize that a deed poll such as used here and commonly throughout California does not satisfy the requirement of the statute of frauds that the written memorandum be subscribed by the party to…”

Show all 470 citing cases →

— Cal. Civil Code § 1624(1) — 6 cases

Ruinello v. Murray, 227 P.2d 251 (Cal. 1951).

J. C. Millett Co. v. Park & Tilford Distillers Corp., 123 F. Supp. 484 (N.D. Cal. 1954).

Dean v. Davis, 166 P.2d 15 (Cal. Ct. App. 1946).

Roberts v. Wachter, 231 P.2d 540 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951).

Brockman v. Lane, 230 P.2d 369 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1624(2) — 2 cases

Schumm v. Berg, 231 P.2d 39 (Cal. 1951). “, § 1973(2); Civ. Code, § 1624(2)). It is asserted that Beery promised to answer for the obligation of Schumm to support plaintiff.”

King v. Smith, 199 P.2d 308 (Cal. 1948).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1624(3) — 1 case

Schumm v. Berg, 231 P.2d 39 (Cal. 1951). “, § 1973(2); Civ. Code, § 1624(2)). It is asserted that Beery promised to answer for the obligation of Schumm to support plaintiff.”

— Cal. Civil Code § 1624(4) — 4 cases

King v. Stanley, 197 P.2d 321 (Cal. 1948).

Ellis v. Klaff, 216 P.2d 15 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950).

Aaker v. Smith, 196 P.2d 150 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948).

Felt v. L. B. Frederick Co., 206 P.2d 676 (Cal. Ct. App. 1949).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1624(5) — 4 cases

Marks v. Walter G. McCarty Corp., 205 P.2d 1025 (Cal. 1949).

C. Forsman Real Est. Co. v. Hatch, 547 P.2d 1116 (Idaho 1976).

Hapsas Realty, Inc. v. McCoun, 579 P.2d 785 (N.M. 1978).

Hillman v. Koch, 206 P.2d 434 (Cal. Ct. App. 1949).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1624(6) — 6 cases

Schumm v. Berg, 231 P.2d 39 (Cal. 1951). “, § 1973(2); Civ. Code, § 1624(2)). It is asserted that Beery promised to answer for the obligation of Schumm to support plaintiff.”

Roy v. Salisbury, 130 P.2d 706 (Cal. 1942).

Murdock v. Swanson, 193 P.2d 81 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948).

Ryan v. Welte, 198 P.2d 357 (Cal. Ct. App. 1948).

Jarkieh v. Badagliacco, 170 P.2d 994 (Cal. Ct. App. 1946).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1624(a) — 9 cases

In Re Marriage of Benson, 116 P.3d 1152 (Cal. 2005). “Section 852(a) does not operate like the general statute of frauds (Civ.Code, § 1624, subd. (a) (Civil Code section 1624(a))), in which the requirement of a basic writing is subject to an implied exception for "part performance" of the contract's terms.”

First Nat'l Mortg. Co. v. Fed. Realty Inv. Trust, 631 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2011).

United States v. Peterson, 820 F. Supp. 2d 576 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

Hilderbrand v. United States, 905 F. Supp. 774 (E.D. Cal. 1995).

Benson v. Benson, 36 Cal. 4th 1096 (Cal. 2005).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1624(a)(1) — 5 cases

Multifamily Captive Grp., LLC v. Assurance Risk Managers, Inc., 578 F. Supp. 2d 1242 (E.D. Cal. 2008).

Swipe & Bite, Inc. v. Chow, 147 F. Supp. 3d 924 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

Kenney v. United States, 329 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

Stewart Lamle v. Mattel, Inc., 394 F.3d 1355 (2005).

In re: Michael G. Seifert & Robin J. Seifert (9th Cir. BAP 2012).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1624(a)(2) — 1 case

Montpelier Nut Co. v. Ditzler CA5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1624(a)(3) — 8 cases

Rex v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 905 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (C.D. Cal. 2012).

Mehta v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 737 F. Supp. 2d 1185 (S.D. Cal. 2010).

Susilo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 796 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2011).

Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Love v. Wiseman (N.D. Cal. 2020).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1624(a)(4) — 1 case

Prince v. SMG, 123 F. App'x 801 (9th Cir. 2005).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1624(a)(7) — 1 case

Errico v. Pac. Capital Bank, N.A., 753 F. Supp. 2d 1034 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1624(d) — 1 case

Roy v. Salisbury, 130 P.2d 706 (Cal. 1942).

— Cal. Civil Code § 1624(g) — 1 case

Consol. Servs., Inc. v. KeyBank Nat'l Ass'n, 29 F. Supp. 2d 942 (N.D. Ind. 1998).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.