## Facts

- Carl A. S. Coan, Jr. alleged Victor J. Orsinger and Tyler Gardens Corp. orally agreed to employ him as resident manager of an apartment development.
- Compensation allegedly included $75 per week plus a rent-free apartment during the contract term.
- Coan claimed the employment term would last until he completed, or was forced to discontinue, his law studies at Georgetown University Law Center.
- The agreement was allegedly discussed on September 30, 1956, confirmed orally the next day, and Coan began work on October 12, 1956.
- Coan received a termination letter on November 17, 1956; termination was allegedly reaffirmed in a December 1, 1956 conference.
- Orsinger denied contracting personally and asserted he acted only as Tyler Gardens’ agent; both defendants denied any stated duration and claimed the job was at will.
- Defendants asserted defenses including proper discharge and the statute of frauds.

## Issues

1. Whether an oral personal-services employment agreement to continue until completion or discontinuance of law studies was an agreement “not to be performed within one year” and therefore unenforceable absent a signed writing under the District of Columbia statute of frauds.
2. Whether, given the pleadings and deposition viewed in the plaintiff’s favor, summary judgment was proper because the statute of frauds barred the claim as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for Orsinger and Tyler Gardens.
- Accepting Coan’s allegations as true, the court held the alleged agreement was not performable within one year from its making.
- Because the agreement was oral and fell within the one-year clause of the statute of frauds, the action could not be maintained.
- The court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact requiring a jury trial.

## Legal Principles

- Under the District of Columbia statute of frauds, an action cannot be brought on an agreement not to be performed within one year from its making unless the agreement is in a signed writing by the party to be charged (or an authorized agent).
- For the one-year clause, the relevant question is whether the contract, as alleged and contemplated, is not to be fully performed within one year; if so, a writing is required.
- When the nonmovant’s own allegations establish a statute-of-frauds bar, summary judgment is appropriate because the defect is legal, not factual.

## Conclusion

The court held that an oral employment agreement tied to completion or discontinuance of law school—given the ordinary multi-year duration of such studies—falls within the statute of frauds’ one-year provision and is unenforceable without a signed writing, warranting summary judgment for the defendants.


Coan v. Orsinger, 265 F.2d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1959)