## Facts

- Calvin F. Beall and Cecelia M. Beall, husband and wife, acquired a one-half-acre parcel in 1956 as tenants by the entirety.
- Carlton G. Beall contracted in 1968 to purchase a surrounding farm and obtained a written three-year option to buy the one-half-acre parcel for $28,000; the option recited $100 consideration, paid to Calvin.
- In 1971, the parties executed a new five-year option on the same terms, again reciting $100 consideration.
- Carlton did not exercise either the 1968 or 1971 option during their stated terms.
- In 1975, the parties added a brief written addendum to the 1971 option stating they agreed to continue the option for three years (to February 1, 1979); the addendum did not state any consideration for the extension.
- Calvin died in 1977; Cecelia became sole owner by survivorship.
- In 1978, Carlton sent letters stating he accepted the offer and set a settlement timeline and date; Cecelia refused to sell for $28,000 and did not attend settlement.
- Carlton sued for specific performance; the trial court dismissed after Carlton’s case, finding lack of consideration for the 1975 extension and no benefit flowing to Cecelia.
- The intermediate appellate court reversed, reasoning that even without consideration the writing might be a valid offer accepted before revocation.
- The state high court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1975 written addendum extending the option satisfied Maryland’s Statute of Frauds for options to purchase real property.
2. Whether alleged forbearance to exercise the earlier option established part performance or consideration sufficient to avoid the Statute of Frauds for the 1975 extension.
3. Whether a bare, unaccepted offer by spouses to sell land held as tenants by the entirety survives the death of one spouse and may be accepted thereafter.

## Decision

- The court held the 1975 addendum did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds because it failed to state consideration for the extension.
- The court rejected the claim that Carlton’s forbearance supplied part performance or consideration, finding the evidence insufficiently unequivocal to tie the forbearance to the alleged extension agreement.
- Treating the 1975 writing at most as a revocable offer, the court held the offer lapsed upon Calvin’s death and could not be accepted afterward.
- The court reversed the intermediate appellate decision, leaving Carlton without specific performance.

## Legal Principles

- An enforceable option is a continuing offer supported by consideration; without consideration, it is merely a revocable offer that may be withdrawn or lapse.
- An extension of an option to purchase real property must itself comply with the Statute of Frauds; the memorandum must include the essential contract elements, including an expression of consideration for the extension.
- Forbearance may constitute part performance or consideration, but when used to avoid the Statute of Frauds it must be proved by unequivocal evidence linking the forbearance to the specific contract alleged.
- Death of an offeror generally revokes or causes an offer to lapse; an offer cannot be accepted after the offeror’s death.
- A bare offer by husband and wife to convey property held as tenants by the entirety does not survive the death of one spouse; after death, acceptance cannot create a contract to convey the former entirety estate absent a new valid offer.

## Conclusion

The court denied specific performance because the 1975 option-extension writing failed the Statute of Frauds and, even if treated as an ordinary offer, it lapsed when one spouse died, making the later attempted acceptance ineffective.


Beall v. Beall, 291 Md. 224, 434 A.2d 1015 (Md. 1981)