## Facts

- Gerald Ficke worked for Gilbert Wolken as a hired hand beginning in 2000, performing broad farm and cattle duties, often with long hours and on-call availability.
- Ficke was paid hourly wages (increasing over time), overtime, and annual bonuses.
- Ficke alleged that in 2002 or 2003 Wolken orally promised to convey a specific 80-acre tract (Wolken’s first 80-acre purchase) if Ficke worked for Wolken for 10 years.
- Ficke continued working for approximately 10 years and 9 months; Wolken terminated his employment in September 2010 without conveying the land.
- Ficke sued in 2011 seeking specific performance of the alleged oral contract, invoking the part performance exception to the statute of frauds.
- Evidence included testimony that Wolken acknowledged the promise and Ficke’s satisfaction of the 10-year condition, including corroboration from Wolken’s sister and alleged conduct treating the tract as already belonging to Ficke.
- Wolken denied an enforceable contract and argued Ficke’s continued employment was consistent with ordinary compensated employment rather than a land-transfer agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether Ficke proved part performance sufficient to enforce an oral contract to convey real property despite the statute of frauds.
2. Whether a court may rely on the plaintiff’s testimony about subjective intent (e.g., continuing to work only because of the promise) to establish part performance.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the decree ordering specific performance and thus affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment.
- The court disapproved the Court of Appeals’ reliance on Ficke’s testimony about his subjective intent to prove part performance.
- The court nevertheless held that independent, objective evidence supported (1) the existence and definite terms of the oral contract and (2) part performance referable solely to that contract, such that refusal to enforce would be fraudulent.

## Legal Principles

- An oral agreement to transfer title to real estate is voidable under the statute of frauds.
- Specific performance based on part performance requires proof of: (1) an oral contract with clear, satisfactory, and unequivocal terms; (2) acts of performance referable solely to that contract and not reasonably referable to a different arrangement; and (3) that nonperformance would amount to fraud on the performing party.
- Acts claimed as part performance must be shown through objective evidence; the plaintiff’s testimony about personal intent, standing alone, is insufficient to establish part performance.
- In equity appeals, appellate courts review the record de novo, but may give weight to the trial court’s credibility determinations where material evidence conflicts.
- A party’s admissions on material matters are admissible as original evidence, and admissions may be made by conduct as well as by oral or written statements.

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Supreme Court enforced an oral employment-for-land agreement through the part performance exception, holding that objective evidence—including admissions and conduct recognizing the promised tract—supported specific performance, while clarifying that subjective intent testimony cannot by itself establish part performance.


Ficke v. Wolken, 868 N.W.2d 305 (Neb. 2015)