## Facts

- In distributing their father’s estate, Harry Gardner received a life estate in two-thirds of certain family farmland; the remainder interest was to go to Harry’s issue, and if none, to his siblings. Harry had no issue.
- By 1985, Harry was heavily indebted to Citizens State Bank, which refused further lending and called his loan due.
- Harry asked his siblings to convey their remainder interests to him so he could try to refinance, allegedly promising that if refinancing failed he would reconvey the remainder interests to them.
- Mark and James Gardner (and other family members) conveyed their remainder interests to Harry by quitclaim deed; the deed contained no written reconveyance condition or agreement.
- The Federal Land Bank denied Harry’s refinancing application.
- When the siblings demanded return of their remainder interests, Harry refused, prompting suit to compel reconveyance (and related equitable relief).
- The district court excluded evidence of the alleged oral agreement under Iowa Code § 622.32 (1987) and, without that evidence, held the deed was not conditional and denied relief.

## Issues

1. Whether the siblings’ conveyance of their remainder interests pursuant to an alleged oral promise to reconvey constituted part performance sufficient to take the agreement outside the statute of frauds.
2. Whether alleged admissions by the grantee supported admitting parol evidence of the oral agreement notwithstanding the statute of frauds.
3. Whether the trial court erred by categorically excluding all evidence of the alleged oral reconveyance agreement and rejecting the claim for equitable relief.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The court held that the plaintiffs’ conveyance of their remainder interests was sufficient part performance to remove the alleged oral agreement from the statute of frauds.
- The court held that parol evidence of the alleged oral agreement was admissible, including evidence of alleged admissions by the defendant.
- The court ruled the district court erred by excluding the oral-agreement evidence as a matter of law and thereby foreclosing plaintiffs’ theory of relief.

## Legal Principles

- An oral agreement concerning an interest in land may be enforced in equity, and proved by parol evidence, when the party seeking enforcement has partly performed in a manner clearly referable to the agreement.
- Conveying a real property interest in reliance on an oral promise can constitute part performance sufficient to defeat a statute-of-frauds defense.
- Parol evidence may be admissible to prove an oral agreement when supported by the adverse party’s admissions, even where the statute of frauds is asserted.
- A court errs by treating the statute of frauds as a categorical bar to all evidence of an oral land agreement when recognized exceptions (including part performance and admissions) are supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court held that the siblings’ deed transfer in reliance on an alleged promise to reconvey, together with evidence including alleged admissions, could remove the oral agreement from the statute of frauds and permit parol proof; the exclusion of that evidence was reversible error requiring remand for further proceedings on the merits and appropriate equitable relief.


Gardner v. Gardner, 454 N.W.2d 361 (Iowa 1990)