## Facts

- In 1979, Murray and Hilda Gleason allegedly promised their son, Walter Gleason, that they would convey to him an undivided one-half interest in their farm if Walter would maintain the farm and pay its expenses.
- Walter began performing that year by maintaining the property, paying farm-related expenses, growing crops on the land, and making significant improvements.
- In 1981, Murray died, leaving Hilda as the sole owner of the farm.
- After Murray’s death, Hilda allegedly reaffirmed to Walter that the agreement remained in effect, and Walter continued performing.
- In 1988, Hilda conveyed the farm to Walter’s brother, James Gleason.
- Walter claimed he was again told the prior arrangement would be honored, but James later demanded that Walter leave the farm.
- By the time of the dispute, Walter claimed he had spent about $27,250 maintaining the farm and paying expenses, and he relied on the promise in continuing possession and making improvements.
- Walter sued Hilda and James seeking enforcement of the oral promise (specific performance) or, alternatively, reimbursement for his expenditures.
- Hilda and James denied that any promise was made and sought to have Walter pay for his use of the property since 1979.
- The trial court found for Walter and granted relief; Hilda and James appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an oral agreement to convey an undivided one-half interest in real property could be enforced notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds.
2. Whether Walter’s possession, payment of farm expenses (including taxes and insurance), maintenance, and improvements constituted part performance sufficiently referable to the alleged agreement to remove it from the Statute of Frauds.
3. Whether specific performance was an appropriate remedy, or whether Walter had an adequate remedy at law.
4. Whether the trial court properly rejected Hilda and James’s claim for compensation for Walter’s use of the farm.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment in Walter’s favor.
- The court held that the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that an oral contract existed under which Walter would receive a one-half interest in the farm in exchange for maintaining the farm and paying its expenses.
- The court held that Walter’s actions—including long-term possession, payment of expenses commonly borne by an owner (including taxes and insurance), and improvements—were sufficient evidence of part performance to permit enforcement despite the Statute of Frauds.
- The court agreed that specific performance was proper because real property is generally treated as unique and money damages would not provide an adequate remedy for the promised interest in the family farm.
- The court upheld the rejection of the defendants’ request to charge Walter for his use of the property during the period he occupied and worked the farm pursuant to the alleged agreement.

## Legal Principles

- Contracts for the transfer of an interest in land generally fall within the Statute of Frauds and must be in writing to be enforceable.
- Equity may enforce an oral land-transfer agreement when the agreement is shown by clear and convincing evidence and the party seeking enforcement proves part performance.
- Part performance must be conduct that is reasonably explained only by the existence of the alleged agreement, such as taking or continuing possession combined with paying ownership-type expenses and making improvements.
- Specific performance is an equitable remedy available only when there is no adequate remedy at law; because land is generally considered unique, specific performance is often appropriate for contracts involving interests in real property.
- Appellate review gives weight to the trial court’s findings on credibility and disputed facts when supported by competent evidence.

## Conclusion

Gleason v. Gleason held that Walter’s years of possession, maintenance, payment of farm expenses (including taxes and insurance), and improvements in reliance on his parents’ oral promise provided sufficient part performance to avoid the Statute of Frauds and justified specific performance awarding him the promised one-half interest in the farm, while also supporting the trial court’s refusal to require Walter to pay the defendants for his use of the property.


Gleason v. Gleason, 582 N.E.2d 657 (1991)