## Facts

- Lloyd Radke and Preston and Audrey Brenon owned adjoining platted lots near Wakefield Lake in Ramsey County, Minnesota; a narrow unplatted strip between the lots and the shoreline was separately owned.
- The Brenons acquired the entire shoreline strip on December 1, 1959; Preston Brenon was a licensed real estate agent and obtained a survey.
- On June 28, 1960, Preston Brenon mailed Radke and other neighbors an identical letter offering to sell each neighbor the irregular parcel of the strip lying between that neighbor’s lot and the lake, stating the total acquisition cost ($2,120) and proposing to divide costs equally among 10 participants, resulting in $212 per parcel, on “any terms agreeable.”
- About two weeks later, Radke orally accepted the offer.
- Two neighbors declined to participate; Brenon recalculated the per-parcel amount by dividing $2,120 among eight participants, increasing Radke’s price to $262, which Radke orally accepted.
- After more than a year without closing, Radke’s counsel wrote on August 16, 1961 stating Radke held a check for $262 and would complete the purchase upon receiving a deed.
- Brenon then notified Radke that the offer to sell was revoked.
- Radke sued for specific performance; the trial court found the Brenons offered to sell for $262, Radke accepted, Radke remained ready and able to perform, and the Brenons wrongfully refused to convey, and ordered specific performance.

## Issues

1. Whether the seller’s June 28, 1960 letter, together with the survey map, constituted a sufficient written memorandum “expressing the consideration” and “subscribed by the party to be charged” to satisfy Minn. Stat. § 513.05 for a contract to convey land.
2. Whether the use of a typewritten name on the letter could satisfy the statute’s subscription (signature) requirement under the circumstances.
3. Whether the price adjustment from $212 to $262 rendered the memorandum insufficient or inconsistent as to consideration.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the judgment ordering specific performance.
- The court held that, given the parties’ admitted and uniformly supported agreement to convey land, the June 28 letter and the accompanying survey map, read together, satisfied Minn. Stat. § 513.05.
- The court treated the typewritten name as an adopted signature where the seller authorized it and regarded it as his signature.
- The court concluded the consideration was sufficiently expressed because the letter stated the total cost and the formula for division; the later $262 figure reflected that same formula after fewer participants agreed.

## Legal Principles

- A statute-of-frauds memorandum for a land sale is sufficient if, taken as a whole, it identifies the parties, reasonably identifies the land, states (or provides a definite method to determine) the consideration, and is subscribed by the party to be charged.
- Multiple writings may be read together to satisfy the statute of frauds when they collectively supply the essential terms; a survey map may supply the land description when linked to a signed writing describing the transaction.
- A typewritten name can satisfy a subscription requirement when the evidence shows the party intended the typewritten name to authenticate the writing.
- Where the existence of a land-sale contract is admitted and the proof supports it, formal objections to the memorandum’s form will not defeat enforcement absent a showing of fraud or comparable inequity.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed specific performance because the seller’s letter, authenticated by an adopted typewritten signature and accompanied by a survey map, provided an adequate written memorandum under Minnesota’s statute of frauds, and the cost-sharing formula in the writing made the adjusted purchase price sufficiently definite.


Radke v. Brenon, 134 N.W.2d 887 (Minn. 1965)