## Facts

- The Halseys owned a farm in Asotin County, Washington, and listed it for sale through brokers.
- The Schweiter brothers sought to purchase only the farm’s tillable portion; the parties did not have a legal description for that portion when negotiations occurred.
- On October 23, 1956, the parties executed an earnest-money receipt for the transaction and the buyers paid a $5,000 earnest-money deposit.
- The receipt stated a legal description was attached, but no description was attached at signing; the brokers retained the buyers’ copy.
- After a survey weeks later, the brokers attached a legal description for the tillable land and informed the buyers.
- The buyers pursued financing for at least $50,000, including an insurance-company loan supported by additional collateral and title/closing documentation.
- The parties discussed a fence between tillable and pasture land; the sellers orally agreed to build it, but construction was delayed.
- The buyers ultimately refused to proceed to closing and gave notice of rescission; the sellers tendered performance and remained ready, willing, and able to perform.
- The buyers sued for a declaration of rights under the earnest-money agreement and return of the $5,000 deposit; the trial court declared the agreement void under the statute of frauds and ordered the deposit returned.

## Issues

1. Whether a land-sale earnest-money agreement is void under the statute of frauds when it lacks a sufficient legal description at the time of execution, even if a description is attached later.
2. If the agreement is unenforceable under the statute of frauds, whether the buyers may recover their earnest-money deposit when the sellers did not repudiate and were ready, willing, and able to perform.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court held the earnest-money agreement void under the statute of frauds because it lacked a sufficient legal description when executed.
- The court held the later attachment of a legal description did not cure the defect absent explicit authorization in the original writing to add or incorporate a later description.
- The court held the buyers were not entitled to restitution of the earnest-money deposit because the sellers did not repudiate and remained ready, willing, and able to perform, while the buyers refused to close.
- The judgment awarding return of the earnest money was reversed and the case remanded.

## Legal Principles

- A contract for the sale of real property must contain a legally sufficient property description in the written agreement at the time of execution to satisfy the statute of frauds.
- A property description added after execution does not satisfy the statute of frauds unless the original writing expressly authorizes supplementation or incorporation of a later description.
- Unenforceability under the statute of frauds does not, by itself, require return of earnest money; restitution may be denied where the buyer refuses to perform and the seller has not repudiated and is ready, willing, and able to perform.

## Conclusion

The court applied a strict statute-of-frauds rule requiring a sufficient legal description in the signed writing at execution and, despite the agreement’s unenforceability, denied buyers restitution of earnest money because the sellers stood ready to perform and the buyers caused the failure to close.


Schweiter v. Halsey, 359 P.2d 821 (Wash. 1961)