## Facts

- In 1983, Benny and Patricia Landes bought a five-acre, undeveloped parcel of real property in Thurston County, Washington.
- The Landeses paid for and arranged site and utility work on the parcel, including installation of a well, septic system, and electrical service.
- In 1984, Patrick Cuzdey (their son-in-law) claimed the Landeses orally agreed to convey the parcel to him in exchange for his physical labor, mechanical work, and construction work.
- From about 1984 to 1997, Patrick and his then-wife Karla (the Landeses’ daughter) lived on the property in a mobile home that had been purchased and installed by the Landeses.
- In 1985, the Landeses obtained a loan and purchased a newer Nova Commodore mobile home (the “Nova”) for Patrick and Karla to live in; the Nova was registered as a vehicle and taxed as personal property.
- Patrick claimed the Landeses orally agreed to sell the Nova to him and Karla for the Landeses’ purchase price, to be paid on the same installment terms; Patrick and Karla asserted they made the monthly loan payments directly to the lender and paid the personal property taxes for the Nova.
- During Patrick’s time on the property, he performed clearing work and helped construct outbuildings, but the Landeses obtained permits, paid for the improvements, and paid the real-property taxes; legal title to the land remained in the Landeses’ names.
- In 1997, the Landeses placed a new manufactured home on the property and moved onto the property themselves.
- Benny Landes died in 2001, and Patricia Landes became the sole owner of the real property.
- In 2014, Patrick and Karla divorced; the divorce decree did not award Patrick any interest in the real property.
- After the divorce, Karla moved off the property, and Patricia served Patrick with a notice to vacate.
- Patrick filed an action to quiet title, asserting ownership of the real property based on the alleged 1984 oral agreement and asserting an ownership interest in the Nova based on the alleged repayment arrangement.
- The superior court granted summary judgment dismissing Patrick’s quiet-title claims and awarded Patricia attorney’s fees and costs under RCW 4.84.185 on the ground the action was frivolous.

## Issues

1. Whether a quiet-title claim to real property based on an alleged oral agreement to convey the land is barred by the statute of frauds, or whether the part-performance doctrine removes the agreement from the statute of frauds.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on Patrick’s claim of ownership in the Nova mobile home (treated as personal property) where the record included evidence that Patrick and Karla paid the purchase loan and personal property taxes.
3. Whether attorney’s fees and costs were properly awarded under RCW 4.84.185 as a frivolous action when at least one claim presented a debatable factual issue.

## Decision

- Affirmed summary judgment dismissing Patrick’s quiet-title claim to the real property as barred by the statute of frauds; the evidence did not satisfy the part-performance standard.
- Reversed summary judgment dismissing Patrick’s quiet-title claim regarding the Nova mobile home because the record showed a genuine issue of material fact on ownership.
- Vacated the award of attorney’s fees and costs under RCW 4.84.185 because the action was not frivolous in its entirety.
- Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- An agreement to transfer an interest in real property must be in writing to be enforceable under Washington’s statute of frauds.
- Part performance may allow enforcement of an oral real-property agreement only when the claimant’s acts (such as possession, payment, and improvements) clearly point to the existence of the alleged purchase agreement rather than another explanation.
- Possession and work performed in a family setting, where the titled owners continue to pay taxes, control permitting, and fund improvements, may be consistent with permissive occupancy and therefore insufficient to establish part performance.
- A mobile home that is registered and taxed as personal property can present ownership questions separate from the real property, and evidence of an agreement plus repayment may create a triable fact dispute.
- RCW 4.84.185 authorizes fees only when an action is frivolous; if any claim is supported by a genuine factual dispute or a reasonable legal argument, fees for a frivolous action are not proper.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that Patrick Cuzdey could not quiet title to the five-acre parcel based on an alleged oral land-transfer agreement because the statute of frauds applied and the record did not show part performance sufficient to avoid it, but it reinstated his claim to the Nova mobile home because evidence of repayment and tax payments created a factual dispute about ownership; because the case included a nonfrivolous claim, the court vacated the frivolous-action fee award and remanded.


Cuzdey v. Landes, 198 Wash. App. 1033 (2017)