Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon; June 21, 1995; Oregon; State Appellate Court
Plaintiff initiated a declaratory judgment action to confirm an easement, which was granted via summary judgment. Defendants appealed, asserting unresolved material facts. The court reversed and remanded the case, emphasizing that the record must be viewed favorably for the opposing party in summary judgment assessments. In 1990, after a retaining wall collapsed due to Skovil's truck, he and plaintiff orally agreed to create a common driveway for access to their backyards. Skovil subsequently moved the wall onto plaintiff's property, filled the area with dirt, and removed trees, allowing him to access his backyard. After selling his property to defendants in 1991, Skovil disclosed the verbal agreement about the common driveway. Defendants continued to use the driveway for their backyard access. In 1993, a dispute arose when defendants asked plaintiff to rebuild the retaining wall, which she refused, believing she had an easement. Plaintiff sought to establish this easement, while defendants argued that the agreement did not meet the Statute of Frauds requirements. Plaintiff contended that either the disclosure statement validated the agreement or that partial performance exempted it from the Statute. The court ruled in favor of plaintiff, affirming the existence of the easement. Generally, oral agreements for transferring real property are unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, which applies to easements. However, if a party partially performs the agreement in good faith, it may be exempt from this statute to prevent fraud or injustice.
For a contract to be exempt from the Statute of Frauds, the court must establish that part performance is "unequivocally and exclusively referable to the contract," meaning it cannot be reasonably attributed to other explanations. In this case, the plaintiff's actions—using the disputed easement, permitting tree removal, allowing fill dirt placement, and accommodating defendants’ use of the easement for heavy equipment and parking—indicate unequivocal referability to an oral agreement. The defendants failed to justify why the plaintiff would permit such use if no easement existed, affirming the actions as partial performance.
Equitable grounds must exist for enforcing a partially performed oral agreement, and such grounds are present here since the defendants benefited significantly from the plaintiff's actions, using the common driveway and necessitating alterations to her property. To allow the defendants to benefit yet deny the agreement after the plaintiff's substantial changes would be inequitable. However, the court noted the need to remand the case to determine the specific terms of the easement, as these terms often depend on subjective understandings. No evidence of the easement's specifics, such as the area involved or permitted uses, was present in the record, indicating that summary judgment was inappropriate. Therefore, the decision is reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The term "defendants" refers to Frank Lewis and Diane Watkins, with Gary Skovil being a former neighbor who is not part of this appeal. The Statute of Frauds is codified in Oregon at ORS 41.580, which outlines that certain agreements, including those related to real estate, must be in writing to be enforceable.
