## Facts

- Title to a house was recorded in the names of Phyllis Jasmin and her husband, Arthur Jasmin.
- John Alberico and Arthur Jasmin were longtime friends; Alberico could not obtain financing to purchase the house.
- Arthur purchased the house and orally promised to deed it to Alberico if Alberico repaid a $2,000 down payment.
- The oral arrangement contemplated that the Albericos would occupy the property and make the mortgage payments and related charges (including taxes, credit life insurance on Arthur’s life, and water rent).
- The Albericos took possession and, with Arthur’s help, made repairs and improvements characterized as ordinary for residential occupancy.
- After Arthur died, the mortgage was paid off from insurance proceeds.
- Alberico sought to tender $2,000 to Phyllis Jasmin and obtain a deed; she refused.
- The Albericos continued making periodic payments to Phyllis until August 1972.
- Phyllis sued in ejectment treating the Albericos as tenants at will; the Albericos counterclaimed for specific performance of the oral agreement.
- The trial court denied ejectment and ordered conveyance to the Albericos upon payment of $2,000.

## Issues

1. Whether an oral agreement to convey land may be specifically enforced notwithstanding the Statute of Frauds based on the occupants’ possession, payments, and ordinary improvements.
2. Whether the defendants’ conduct constituted sufficient part performance, unequivocally referable to the alleged contract, to remove the agreement from the Statute of Frauds.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the decree of specific performance.
- Assuming the trial court’s factual findings, the court held the oral land-transfer agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
- The court concluded the Albericos’ possession, mortgage-type payments, and ordinary improvements were insufficient part performance to justify specific enforcement.
- By rejecting the counterclaim for specific performance, the plaintiff’s ejectment claim could proceed without being defeated by the unwritten agreement.

## Legal Principles

- Contracts for the conveyance of land generally must be in writing under the Statute of Frauds; oral agreements are unenforceable absent a recognized exception.
- A party seeking specific performance of an oral land contract bears the burden to prove both the contract and facts taking it outside the Statute of Frauds.
- Part performance must be substantial and typically must be unequivocally referable to the alleged agreement; acts consistent with a tenancy are generally inadequate.
- Payments associated with occupancy and ordinary residential repairs or improvements, without more, may not constitute the irretrievable change of position required for specific performance.
- When reliance harms can be addressed through monetary relief, equity will not compel transfer of title based on an unenforceable oral agreement.

## Conclusion

The court held that an oral promise to convey real property could not be specifically enforced where the occupants’ possession, payments, and routine improvements did not meet the strict part-performance requirements needed to avoid the Statute of Frauds, requiring reversal of the conveyance order and leaving the owner’s ejectment remedy available.


Jasmin v. Alberico, 376 A.2d 32 (Vt. 1977)