## Facts

- Clarence Burr owned farm land that Bill Hahne (with Steve Schneider) leased for three years beginning in February 2000.
- Near the end of the lease term, Hahne and Burr discussed a possible sale of the property to Hahne; Hahne asserted that by December 2002 they had orally agreed on all sale terms, including price.
- Because closing could not occur before January 1, 2003, Hahne claimed he agreed to pay additional rent until the sale could close.
- In January 2003, Hahne retained an attorney to prepare closing papers (including a deed and related documents) and sent them to Burr; Burr did not sign them.
- Hahne tendered a $15,000 check he characterized as partly rent and partly a down payment.
- Hahne asserted reliance, including not leasing or buying other land for his farming operation.
- In February 2003, an e-mail from Burr’s grandson informed Hahne that Burr had decided not to sell the property.
- Hahne sued seeking specific performance of the alleged oral land-sale contract; the circuit court granted summary judgment for Burr under the statute of frauds and denied Burr’s request for Rule 11 sanctions.

## Issues

1. Whether the statute of frauds barred specific performance of an alleged oral contract for the sale of land when Burr did not sign any writing evidencing an agreement to sell.
2. Whether Hahne’s asserted payment, preparation of closing documents, and reliance were sufficient to avoid the statute of frauds through partial performance or an equitable theory.
3. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Rule 11 sanctions sought by Burr.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed summary judgment for Burr, holding the statute of frauds barred enforcement of the alleged oral land-sale agreement.
- The court concluded that the documents and communications did not constitute a memorandum signed by Burr evidencing an agreement to sell; the e-mail relied upon reflected a refusal to sell.
- The court rejected claimed exceptions, concluding the asserted conduct was not unequivocally referable to a land-sale contract and did not remove the case from the statute of frauds.
- The court affirmed the denial of Rule 11 sanctions, holding the circuit court did not abuse its discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A contract for the sale of land is unenforceable absent a writing subscribed by the party to be charged (or an authorized agent) that adequately evidences the agreement.
- Unsigned closing documents prepared by the buyer (or the buyer’s counsel) do not satisfy the statute of frauds against the seller.
- Partial performance must be unequivocally referable to the alleged land-sale agreement; ambiguous conduct consistent with an existing lease relationship (including payments that can be treated as rent) is insufficient.
- Rule 11 sanctions are reviewed for abuse of discretion and are not imposed merely because a party’s claim fails; sanctions require filings lacking an objectively reasonable factual or legal basis or made for improper purpose.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the statute of frauds strictly in a dispute over an alleged oral agreement to sell farm land, finding no signed writing by the seller and no conduct sufficient to qualify as unequivocal partial performance; it also upheld the trial court’s refusal to impose Rule 11 sanctions.


Hahne v. Burr, 705 N.W.2d 867 (S.D. 2005)