## Facts

- A landowner, Earline Waddle, contracted to sell approximately four acres in Rutherford County, Tennessee, to Regent Investments 1, LLC for $230,000, with $10,000 earnest money.
- During title work, Regent discovered Waddle had previously conveyed a one-half interest in the property to her niece, Lorene B. Elrod, by quitclaim deed.
- Regent sued Waddle and Elrod, alleging Elrod obtained her interest through undue influence and seeking to set aside the deed.
- Waddle filed a cross-claim against Elrod to set aside the deed; the cross-claim included a full legal description of the property.
- Regent later settled and dismissed its claims; Waddle’s cross-claim against Elrod proceeded toward trial.
- On the eve of trial, counsel exchanged emails confirming settlement terms, including that Elrod would deed her one-half interest back to Waddle, the parties would execute mutual releases, and Waddle would not be responsible for court costs; each counsel typed their name at the end of their emails.
- The trial court canceled the trial based on the reported settlement.
- Elrod later refused to sign formal settlement documents and asserted there was no enforceable agreement.
- Waddle moved to enforce the settlement agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether Tennessee’s Statute of Frauds, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-2-101(a)(4), applies to a settlement agreement requiring a transfer of an interest in real property.
2. If the Statute of Frauds applies, whether counsel’s emails (with typed names) combined with the property description in the pleadings satisfy the writing and signature requirements, as informed by Tennessee’s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA).

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court held the Statute of Frauds applies to settlement agreements that require transfer of an interest in real property.
- The Court held the Statute of Frauds was satisfied because the attorneys’ emails constituted signed electronic records under UETA and the property was described with reasonable certainty by the legal description in Waddle’s cross-claim.
- The Court affirmed enforcement of the settlement agreement, affirming the result reached below but rejecting the intermediate court’s conclusion that the Statute of Frauds was inapplicable.

## Legal Principles

- Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-2-101(a)(4) applies to any contract requiring a transfer of an interest in land, including litigation settlement agreements obligating a party to deed real property.
- Under UETA, an electronic record can satisfy a legal writing requirement, and an electronic signature can satisfy a legal signature requirement when the parties’ conduct shows agreement to transact electronically.
- Multiple writings may be read together to satisfy the Statute of Frauds if their connection is shown; the combined writings must identify the parties, describe the property with reasonable certainty, and state material terms.
- Emails between authorized counsel that memorialize material settlement terms and include typed names may satisfy the Statute of Frauds’ signature requirement.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a settlement requiring the return of a one-half interest in land, holding that such agreements are subject to the Statute of Frauds and that counsel’s email exchange, read with the pleadings containing the property’s legal description, constituted a sufficiently signed writing under UETA.


Waddle v. Elrod, 367 S.W.3d 217 (Tenn. 2012)