Preview:

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ___________________________ Belknap No. 2007-023 L. HAMLIN GREENE v. ROBERT J. MCLEOD & a. Argued: November 8, 2007 Opinion Issued: February 15, 2008 Greene Law Group, P.L.L.C., of Bedford (Arthur G. Greene on the brief and orally), for the petitioner. Patrick Wood Law Office, PLLC, of Laconia (Patrick H. Wood on the brief and orally), for the respondents. DUGGAN, J. The petitioner, L. Hamlin Greene, appeals the order of the Superior Court (Smukler, J.) denying his petition to quiet title to certain land in Alton. We reverse. The trial court found the following facts. In 1956, the petitioner took title to certain property with Robert W. McLeod (the father of the respondents, Robert J. McLeod and Ann McLeod Harvey) and James Nelson as tenants in common. The tenants in common subdivided the land and sold various lots within the subdivision until September 30, 1959, when Nelson requested that the petitioner and McLeod buy out his share of the remaining land. The

petitioner and McLeod agreed and took title to the remaining parcels as tenants in common. Sales continued until only two lots remained unsold. In 1975, McLeod moved to Florida. The trial court found that, at that time, McLeod asked the petitioner to buy out his interest in the two remaining tracts of land, which were the only parcels left from the larger tract originally purchased by the petitioner, McLeod and Nelson. The petitioner agreed and paid McLeod $5,000 for his share; however, the petitioner and McLeod never signed a written contract memorializing their agreement. A few years later, McLeod delivered two blank warranty deeds to the petitioner, which McLeod signed with the intent to convey his share of the remaining land to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, neither completed nor recorded the deeds. Since 1975, the petitioner has paid all of the property taxes on the land that is the subject of this dispute. McLeod died in 1988 and his wife, Mary, died in 1997. The McLeods are survived by their children, the respondents. In their brief, the respondents note that McLeod's will was filed in the circuit court in Pasco County, Florida. The respondents also acknowledge that Mary McLeod's estate was probated in Pasco County, Florida, and that neither her will, nor the probate records for her estate, contain any reference to property located in New Hampshire. In 2004, the petitioner contacted the respondents in an effort to obtain a quitclaim deed confirming the sale of McLeod's share of the remaining land to the petitioner. The respondents declined the request, and the petitioner brought this petition to quiet title. The trial court denied the petition, and this appeal followed. In an effort to clarify ambiguities in the record, we remanded the case to the trial court on December 18, 2007, to make findings on the following two questions: (1) whether there were any agreements between the petitioner and McLeod with respect to the payment of property taxes assessed on the property prior to the oral transfer of McLeod's interest in 1975; and (2) whether there are any avenues of restitution available to the petitioner. The trial court responded on January 10, 2008, finding that: (1) the petitioner "and Robert W. McLeod agreed to split equally the cost of property taxes assessed on the property before Mr. McLeod moved to Florida in 1975"; and (2) "there is no record evidence supporting the availability of any type of `restitution' because the petitioner has made no such request." On appeal, the petitioner does not challenge the trial court's factual findings. Rather, he asserts that the trial court misapplied the law to the relevant facts when it ruled that: (1) the conveyance of McLeod's undivided one-half share of the property to the petitioner was barred by the statute of

2

frauds; (2) equitable considerations do not favor overriding the statute of frauds; and (3) a constructive trust is not warranted. In an action to quiet title, the burden "is on each party to prove good title as against all other parties whose rights may be affected by the court's decree." Sorenson v. Wilson, 124 N.H. 751, 758 (1984). A trial court may not render judgment quieting title to disputed property "in the absence of parties with a duly recorded interest in the property, unless those parties claimed no interest and the petition so alleged." Id. We will uphold the trial court's determination unless it is erroneous as a matter of law or unsupported by the evidence. Riverwood Commercial Prop's v. Cole, 134 N.H. 487, 490 (1991). Moreover, we will not overturn the trial court's ruling on a mixed question of fact and law unless it is clearly erroneous. Cadle Co. v. Bourgeois, 149 N.H. 410, 415 (2003). If, however, the court misapplies the law to its factual findings, we review the matter independently. Id. The petitioner first argues that the trial court erred when it ruled that the statute of frauds barred the conveyance of McLeod's undivided one-half share of the property to him. He asserts that the statute of frauds was, in fact, satisfied. The statute of frauds provides: "No action shall be maintained upon a contract for the sale of land unless the agreement upon which it is brought, or some memorandum thereof, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged, or by some person authorized by him in writing." RSA 506:1 (1997). Its purpose is to "promote certainty and to protect frauds and perjuries in land transactions." Weale v. Massachusetts Gen. Housing Corp., 117 N.H. 428, 431 (1977). To satisfy the statute of frauds, "the writing must express the essential terms of the contract." Lapierre v. Cabral, 122 N.H. 301, 305 (1982). These terms include: the purchase price, the identity of the parties, and a description of the real estate in question. Id.; see Cunningham v. Singer, 111 N.H. 159, 160 (1971). Here, the only "writings" were two blank deeds, signed by McLeod. These blank deeds were insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the statute of frauds. They did not indicate the purchase price, the identities of both parties to the transaction or describe the real estate in question. The trial court's ruling on this issue was, therefore, correct. To the extent that the petitioner asserts that parol evidence was admissible to supply the missing terms of the contract, he is mistaken. Where, as here, the only writings fail to contain any of the essential terms of the real estate contract, to allow parol evidence to supply these essential terms "would circumvent the purpose of the Statute of Frauds." Badr Export and Import, Inc. v. Groveton, 122 N.H. 101, 103 (1982).

3

The petitioner's reliance upon Cunningham, 111 N.H. at 160, and Jesseman v. Aurelio, 106 N.H. 529, 532 (1965), is misplaced. In both cases, the writings contained at least some of the essential terms of the agreement. In Cunningham, the writing identified the parties to the transaction and the sale price. Cunningham, 111 N.H. at 159-60. It also described the property to be sold as "house with contents and one acre of land . . . first house on the left belonging to Mrs. Anna Singer . . . on Lewis Hill Bethlehem, N.H." Id. at 160. We held that, to the extent that this description was insufficient, the trial court did not err by relying upon extrinsic evidence to specify the property to which the writing referred. Id. at 160-61. Similarly, in Jesseman, both parties to the transaction signed a writing that identified the parties and the sale price and described the land to be sold as: [the] property at the intersection of Route 11 and 11B, Gilford, N. H. . . . a parcel of land on the Harris Shore Road approximately 300 feet from the Westerly point near the beach to an open sand pit; then in a Northerly direction and at right angle, for about 500 feet to the brook; and then in a Southwesterly direction to point of beginning. Jesseman, 106 N.H. at 530. We ruled that this description was sufficient and that the trial court erred when it ruled that the agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds. Id. at 533-34. By contrast, in the instant case, the warranty deeds were completely blank. Each deed fails to identify either party, does not specify any property to be delivered and does not specify the purchase price. They are simply insufficient indicia of the agreement between the parties to satisfy the statute. The petitioner next argues that the trial court erred by failing to find that equitable considerations militate against application of the statute of frauds. See Weale, 117 N.H. at 431. Because "strict enforcement of the statute can produce frustration on the one hand, and unethical conduct on the other[,] . . . the law seeks to alleviate the harshness of the statute when some operating facts, such as fraud, part performance or other equitable considerations, are present." Id. (citation omitted). The petitioner contends that "enforc[ing] the statute [here] would result in unjust enrichment to the seller or fraud[,]" id., because he has paid both consideration for the conveyance and all of the taxes on the property for over thirty years. He asserts that, inter alia, the doctrine of part performance therefore applies. See id. We agree. "[T]he `part performance' doctrine is a judicial device [intended] to prevent the terms of a formal statute from doing grave injustice." 4 C. Brown, Corbin on Contracts

Download 2007-023, L. HAMLIN GREENE v. ROBERT J. MCLEOD & a..pdf

New Hampshire Law