## Facts

- A seller and a married couple entered a written contract for the sale of a residence for $19,500.
- The contract described the property only as “415 Holley, Sherman, Texas.”
- After execution, an abstract company added a full legal description to the contract.
- The contract contemplated that buyers would take possession 30 days after closing.
- Before closing, the buyers sought earlier possession than the date contemplated in the written agreement.
- The seller treated the request for early possession as a breach, returned the earnest money, and stated he would not complete the sale.
- After suit was filed for breach of contract (including attorney’s fees), the seller discovered he owned only an undivided one-half interest; the other half belonged to his son.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment for the buyers on liability, denied the seller’s summary-judgment motion, and tried damages and attorney’s fees to a jury, which found for the buyers.

## Issues

1. Whether the contract’s property description by street address satisfied the Texas Statute of Frauds requirement that land be identified with reasonable certainty.
2. Whether summary judgment on liability was proper given disputes concerning breach and the seller’s ability to perform due to partial ownership.

## Decision

- The court held the description “415 Holley, Sherman, Texas” was sufficient under the Statute of Frauds because it provided data by which the property could be identified with reasonable certainty.
- The court reversed the partial summary judgment on liability and remanded for trial on liability because material fact issues remained.
- The court left undisturbed the jury’s determinations on damages and attorney’s fees.

## Legal Principles

- A land-sale contract satisfies the Statute of Frauds if the writing furnishes the means or data to identify the property with reasonable certainty; it need not contain a complete legal description.
- A street address may be a sufficient description when it points to a unique, identifiable parcel and does not create confusion as to what property is intended.
- Extrinsic evidence may be used to apply the written description to the specific property, but not to supply an entirely missing description.
- Summary judgment is improper when genuine disputes of material fact remain as to breach, performance, or the effect of title defects on contractual obligations.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the seller’s Statute of Frauds defense, ruling that the street address was an adequate property description, but reversed the liability determination because disputed facts about breach and the seller’s partial title required a trial on liability.


Butler v. Benefield, 589 S.W.2d 778 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.)