## Facts

- Anthony and Sheila Durham alleged that Frank Harbin orally agreed to sell them a subdivision lot for $7,600.
- The Durhams asserted they paid the full purchase price, but the Harbins refused to convey the lot.
- There was no evidence the Durhams ever took possession of the property.
- The Harbins raised Alabama’s Statute of Frauds for land-sale contracts as an affirmative defense.
- The Durhams relied on two letters on Harbin Construction Company letterhead (one unsigned and one signed only by Angela Harbin) as the required written memorandum.
- The record did not show Angela Harbin acted as Frank Harbin’s authorized agent, nor that Frank adopted or ratified the letters.
- The Durhams also argued the Harbins were estopped from invoking the Statute of Frauds, including based on alleged judicial admissions of the agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether the letters on company letterhead—unsigned or signed only by the seller’s spouse—satisfied the Statute of Frauds requirement of a memorandum subscribed by the party to be charged (or a lawfully authorized agent) for a land-sale contract.
2. Whether the sellers were estopped from asserting the Statute of Frauds based on their conduct, including alleged judicial admissions of the oral contract’s existence and terms.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed summary judgment for the Harbins.
- The letters did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds as to Frank Harbin because they were not subscribed by him and did not show valid authorized agency or ratification.
- The part-performance exception did not apply because the Durhams were never put in possession; payment alone was insufficient.
- Estoppel did not bar the Statute of Frauds defense; alleged admissions of an oral land contract did not make it enforceable absent additional inequitable conduct.
- Because the Harbins established the Statute of Frauds defense and the Durhams failed to produce at least a scintilla of evidence avoiding it, summary judgment was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Contracts for the sale of land are unenforceable unless supported by a written memorandum subscribed by the party to be charged or by an agent lawfully authorized to sign for that party.
- Company letterhead or a typewritten name, without proof of intent to authenticate by the party to be charged, is not a sufficient “signature” for Statute of Frauds purposes.
- A writing signed only by a spouse does not bind the other spouse absent proof of authorized agency or adoption/ratification by the party to be charged.
- Part performance generally requires possession (and typically more than mere payment); payment of the purchase price alone does not remove an oral land-sale agreement from the Statute of Frauds.
- In summary judgment, once a defendant makes a prima facie showing that an affirmative defense such as the Statute of Frauds applies, the plaintiff must present at least a scintilla of evidence that the defense is inapplicable or avoided.
- In Alabama, a party’s admission of an oral contract within the Statute of Frauds does not, by itself, render the contract enforceable or estop assertion of the statute.

## Conclusion

The court held the alleged land-sale agreement was barred by the Statute of Frauds because the plaintiffs lacked a qualifying signed writing and could not rely on part performance or estoppel; summary judgment for the sellers was affirmed.


Durham v. Harbin, 530 So. 2d 208 (Ala. 1988)