part performance doctrine in Indiana

2020Further, oral contracts for the sale of land “may be enforced by a court of equity under the doctrine of part performance.” Summerlot v. Summerlot, 408 N.E.2d 820, 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980).

2017See id. (holding that, assuming Brinkworth sufficiently changed his position in reliance on the promise to convey the property, the nature of the injury cannot be characterized as so substantial that injustice can be avoided only through specific performance, that nothing prevented Brinkworth from receiving the reasonable value of his services or restitution or both, and that the part performance doctrine does not apply to remove the promise from the Statute of Frauds).

2013“Circumstances generally held sufficient to invoke the doctrine of part performance as an 5 exception to the statute of frauds are some combination of the following: payment of the purchase price or a part thereof; possession; and lasting and valuable improvements on the land.” Id. (quoting Perkins, 721 N.E.2d at 292 ).

2013“Circumstances generally held sufficient to invoke the doctrine of part performance as an 5 exception to the statute of frauds are some combination of the following: payment of the purchase price or a part thereof; possession; and lasting and valuable improvements on the land.” Id. (quoting Perkins, 721 N.E.2d at 292 ).

2025See Wolke v. Fleming, 103 Ind. 105 , 2 N.E. 325, 327 (1885) (“[T]he doctrine of part performance has no application to contracts that cannot be performed by either party within a year.”); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 130 cmt. e (“Part performance not amounting to full performance on one side does not in general take a contract out of the one-year provision.

1892The Supreme Court of this State, in the case of Wolke v. Fleming, 103 Ind. 105 , said : “ It is difficult to conceive any reason why the doctrine of part performance does not apply to a lease,” yet the court admitted there was some conflict of opinion upon the question and expressly declined to take any authoritative stand respecting it, because not compelled to do so in the decision of that case.

2017Id.

2014Pursuant to the doctrine of part performance, “equity will not permit a party who breaches an oral contract to invoke the statute of frauds where the other party ‘has performed his part of the agreement to such an extent that repudiation of the contract would lead to an unjust or fraudulent result[.]’” Spring Hill Developers, Inc. v. Arthur, 879 N.E.2d 1095, 1104 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Summerlot v. Summerlot, 408 N.E.2d 820, 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980)).

2002Cf. Dupont Feedmill Corp. v. Standard Supply Corp., 182 Ind.App. 459, 463 , 395 N.E.2d 808, 811 (1979) ("Circumstances generally held sufficient to invoke the doctrine of part performance as an exception to the Statute of Frauds are some combination of the following: payment of the purchase price or a part thereof, possession, and lasting and valuable improvements on the land.").

2002Cf. Dupont Feedmill Corp. v. Standard Supply Corp., 182 Ind.App. 459, 463 , 395 N.E.2d 808, 811 (1979) ("Circumstances generally held sufficient to invoke the doctrine of part performance as an exception to the Statute of Frauds are some combination of the following: payment of the purchase price or a part thereof, possession, and lasting and valuable improvements on the land.").

2016E & L Rental Equip., Inc. v. Wade Constr., Inc., 752 N.E.2d 655, 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

2006See, e.g., Marathon Oil Co. v. Collins, 744 N.E.2d 474, 478 (Ind.Ct.App.2001); Perkins v. Owens, 721 N.E.2d 289, 292 (Ind.Ct.App.1999).

1979See Holmes v. Rushville Production Credit Association, (1976) Ind.App., 353 N.E.2d 509 . 1 As to the part performance exception, the only possible part performance— the “acceptance” of the check (not cashed) by Standard — standing alone is not sufficient.