## Facts

- Robert J. Hurtubise and Scott B. McPherson owned adjoining parcels in Templeton, Massachusetts; Hurtubise operated a storage business on his land.
- Hurtubise sought to build an additional storage shed near the boundary but could not satisfy zoning setbacks without acquiring a strip of McPherson’s land.
- The parties reached an oral agreement to exchange land: Hurtubise would convey a portion of his frontage to McPherson in return for the portion of McPherson’s land where the new shed would sit; they shook hands and executed no writing.
- Hurtubise obtained a building permit and, over roughly seven to eight weeks, excavated and constructed a 300-by-30-foot storage shed at a cost of about $39,690.
- During construction, McPherson observed the work and did not object to the building’s location.
- After construction, Hurtubise provided a plan showing the shed extended onto McPherson’s lot by about ten feet; McPherson objected, demanded $250,000 to resolve the dispute, and reported the encroachment to town officials.
- Hurtubise sued in Superior Court for specific performance of the land swap; McPherson asserted the Statute of Frauds and argued the oral agreement was too indefinite to enforce.
- After a bench trial, the judge ordered specific performance of the oral land exchange; McPherson appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Statute of Frauds barred enforcement of the parties’ oral agreement to exchange land.
2. Whether the oral land-swap agreement was too indefinite to support specific performance.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment ordering specific performance.
- The court held McPherson was equitably estopped from invoking the Statute of Frauds because Hurtubise made substantial, foreseeable expenditures in reliance on the agreement while McPherson knowingly remained silent during construction.
- The court held the agreement was sufficiently definite for specific performance because the land to be exchanged was reasonably identifiable from the parties’ understanding, the subsequent plan, testimony, and the as-built location of the shed.

## Legal Principles

- Although contracts to convey interests in land generally must be in writing, equity may prevent a party from asserting the Statute of Frauds when that party’s conduct induced or knowingly permitted substantial reliance such that nonenforcement would be unjust.
- Equitable estoppel may arise from a party’s knowledge of, and failure to object to, the other party’s material change of position undertaken in reliance on an oral land agreement.
- Specific performance requires reasonably certain identification of the property interest to be conveyed; absolute precision at formation is not required if the court can determine the subject matter from competent evidence and the parties’ conduct.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the oral land swap through specific performance because McPherson’s knowing acquiescence to Hurtubise’s costly construction estopped him from relying on the Statute of Frauds, and the evidence made the swapped areas sufficiently ascertainable to decree performance.


Hurtubise v. McPherson, 80 Mass. App. Ct. 186, 951 N.E.2d 994 (2011)