## Facts

- Jennifer M. Richard and Gregory J. Richard married in 1995 and lived at 99 Montgomery Street in Tiverton, Rhode Island, a home owned by Gregory’s father, Norman Richard.
- The couple initially occupied the property as tenants and paid weekly rent to Norman.
- Jennifer and Gregory claimed Norman later orally agreed to sell them the property for $70,000; Norman denied any sale agreement and contended the $70,000 was a savings target for a future down payment.
- After the alleged agreement, the couple made weekly payments exceeding prior rent, and Norman recorded the excess payments in a separate ledger by deducting them from a $70,000 balance.
- The couple made permanent, non-removable improvements to the property consistent with an ownership expectation.
- During divorce proceedings between Jennifer and Gregory, the Family Court found an oral contract for sale existed, found partial performance, and ordered Norman (a third party to the divorce) to convey the property to the spouses.
- Norman appealed, arguing no contract existed and, in any event, the Statute of Frauds barred enforcement of an unwritten land-sale agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether the Family Court clearly erred in finding that Norman and the couple formed an oral contract for the sale of the Tiverton property for $70,000.
2. Whether, if an oral land-sale contract existed, the couple’s conduct constituted part performance sufficient to avoid the Statute of Frauds and support specific performance.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s decree.
- The Court held the trial justice had a sufficient evidentiary basis to find an oral contract to sell the property for $70,000.
- The Court held the couple’s payments and permanent improvements were sufficiently referable to a purchase agreement to satisfy the part-performance exception to the Statute of Frauds.
- The Court upheld specific performance requiring Norman to convey the property.

## Legal Principles

- An appellate court defers to a trial justice’s credibility determinations and factual findings unless material evidence was overlooked or the findings were clearly wrong.
- Contracts for the sale of land generally fall within the Statute of Frauds and are unenforceable absent a writing.
- An oral land-sale agreement may be enforced in equity where part performance is shown and the acts are explainable only by reference to the alleged contract, such that nonenforcement would work fraud or injustice.
- Payments structured and recorded as reductions of a stated purchase balance, coupled with possession and permanent improvements, can constitute part performance supporting specific performance of an oral real-estate contract.
- Specific performance is an available remedy for breach of a real-property sale agreement where the evidence supports contract formation and equitable enforcement.

## Conclusion

The Rhode Island Supreme Court upheld enforcement of an oral agreement to sell real property, concluding that the Family Court permissibly credited testimony finding a $70,000 purchase contract and that the buyers’ payment pattern, ledger evidence, and permanent improvements established part performance removing the agreement from the Statute of Frauds and justifying specific performance.


Richard v. Richard, 900 A.2d 1170 (R.I. 2006)