## Facts

- Mark Hathaway agreed to sell Douglas Crawley a portion of Hathaway’s land.
- Hathaway and Crawley signed a handwritten agreement stating the sale would include about 100 acres consisting of pasture, timber, and tillable ground.
- After the agreement was signed, Hathaway hired a surveyor.
- Hathaway directed the surveyor to plot the parcel that Hathaway and Crawley had agreed would be included in the sale.
- The survey showed that the parcel identified through the survey process totaled about 127 acres.
- After seeing the survey results, Hathaway refused to complete the sale to Crawley.
- Hathaway then listed the land for sale through a real-estate broker at a higher price.
- Crawley sued for specific performance to force Hathaway to convey the land under the agreement.
- Hathaway moved for summary judgment, arguing the statute of frauds barred enforcement because the written agreement did not sufficiently describe the land.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Hathaway, and Crawley appealed.

## Issues

1. Does the statute of frauds bar enforcement of a land-sale agreement when the signed writing describes the parcel only generally (e.g., “about 100 acres” of certain land types), but extrinsic evidence tied to the parties’ survey directions can identify the parcel?

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held that the statute of frauds did not require the handwritten agreement to contain a complete legal description so long as the writing, when applied with permissible extrinsic evidence, could identify the land with reasonable certainty.
- Because the parties’ actions in directing the surveyor could connect the written description to a specific parcel, summary judgment for Hathaway on statute-of-frauds grounds was improper.

## Legal Principles

- A contract for the sale of land must be evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged, and the writing must provide a land description that identifies the property with reasonable certainty.
- The writing need not contain a metes-and-bounds description if it supplies a workable basis for identifying the parcel.
- Extrinsic evidence may be used to apply a general written description to a particular tract, including evidence of how the parties identified the boundaries during a survey.
- Summary judgment is improper when designated evidence could allow a factfinder to determine that the written agreement, together with permissible extrinsic evidence, satisfies the statute of frauds.

## Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings, holding that a signed land-sale memorandum is not automatically unenforceable under the statute of frauds merely because it lacks a full legal description, where evidence connected to the parties’ survey directions could identify the parcel described in the agreement.


Crawley v. Hathaway, 721 N.E.2d 1208 (1999)