## Facts

- The defendants owned lakeside property on Lake Dunmore that was divided by a road; they offered the front lot and cottage for sale while intending to keep the back lot and a 50-foot strip to the lake.
- The parties signed a written purchase-and-sale contract in August 1985, with an October closing.
- The written contract was contingent on the defendants obtaining a subdivision permit from the Leicester Planning Commission.
- While the permit application was pending, the plaintiff proposed by telephone that, if the permit were denied, the sellers could retain access to the lake by reserving a 50-foot right-of-way easement rather than retaining fee ownership of the strip.
- On October 1, the defendant orally indicated that the right-of-way arrangement was acceptable if the subdivision permit was not approved.
- On October 12, the Planning Commission denied the subdivision permit; on October 13, the defendants informed the plaintiffs that the deal was off and stated they would sell the whole parcel or nothing.
- The plaintiffs sued seeking specific performance of the alleged oral agreement and also sought damages.

## Issues

1. Whether an alleged oral agreement altering a written land-sale contract to substitute a reserved easement arrangement was enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
2. Whether part performance or equitable doctrines removed the alleged oral agreement from the Statute of Frauds and supported specific performance.
3. Whether the plaintiffs could recover damages based on the alleged oral agreement.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the decree of specific performance.
- The court held the dispute was controlled by the Statute of Frauds and the alleged oral agreement concerning interests in land was unenforceable.
- The court rejected claimed equitable bases to avoid the Statute of Frauds on the record presented.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of damages to the plaintiffs.

## Legal Principles

- Contracts for the sale of land or interests in land must be in writing to be enforceable under Vermont’s Statute of Frauds.
- A modification to a land-sale agreement is subject to the same writing requirement as the original contract.
- An arrangement reserving an easement or right-of-way is an interest in land within the Statute of Frauds.
- Equitable exceptions (including part performance or estoppel) require clear proof of conduct unequivocally referable to the alleged oral land agreement and sufficient to justify enforcement despite the statute.

## Conclusion

Because the alleged telephone agreement changed the land transaction by creating and reserving a property interest and was not reduced to a signed writing, it was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds; the decree ordering specific performance was reversed and the denial of damages was affirmed.


Chomicky v. Buttolph, 147 Vt. 128, 513 A.2d 1174 (Vt. 1986)