4)
Question 4
Property conveymces must satism the Statute of Frauds. Here, Owne owned Whiteacre.
He then conveyed Miteacre to Abe by deed, which is a writing. The S t a ~ of
e Fruads is
g
by the person who is conveying the property, as long as the property
satisfied by a ~ t i n signed
is described, the pariteds are named, and a price is listed. The conveyance hem fails the
requirement in two ways. First no consideration is stated in the deed. This is not a serious
problem, because the conveyance may have been gratutious. However, the parties must be
named in the conveyance. Here, Abe was never named in the deed. Abe could submit extrinsic
evidence to the court in order to clarify the ambiguity of language in the deed. If he can do so,
the conveyance will likely be proper.
Abe could also claim that the Statute of fruads was satisfied through part performance. In
order for a person to assert part performance as a defense, there must have been two of the
following: possession, improvements made to the land, and 1 1 1 price paid for the land. Here,
there is no evidence that any money was ever exchanged between Owen and Abe. Moreover,
Abe never made any improvements to the land, he did not build any structures on whiteacre, or
build a fence there. Thus, Abe cannot claim to have satisfied the Statute of Frauds through part
performance.
Abe could also claim that he owns Whiteacre through adverse possession. To adversly
possess property, one must occupy the land in a hostile manner, i.e. without permission, must
exclude others, must hold the land for the statutoraly prescribed time, must be undisturbed in his
possession of the land, the occupation must be visible, and the adverse possessor must actually
possess the land. In this case, Abe would argue that he occupied the land for 11 years, which is
one more year than the statute requires. He would also state that he used the land in the same
way that the owner would, i.e. for recreational purposes, and cutting firewood. That Owen did
not give him permission to do this, that his use was obvious and notorious. However Buyer
would claim that Abe did have Owen's permission to be on the land, becuase Owen had tried to
convey the property to Abe. Also, Buyer would claim that Abe failed to hold the property
exclusively and unintempted. Abe did not make any attempt to exclude the use of Whiteacre by
others, becuase he never posted any signs warning others to keep out, and he did not fence
Whiteacre in. Thus, no one was ever excluded fromusing whiteacre, and may may have done so
without Abe's permission.
Buyer will claim that Whiteacre belongs to him becuase he was a purchaser in Good
Faith, for value, without notice of the transfer to Abe. Ther rccordiig statute in effect is a pure
notice statute, so the last person to take as a Buyer for value without notice should own the land.
Ln this case, Abe never recorded his deed, so Buyer never had record notice that Owen had
conveyed Whiteacre to Abe. Moreover, Abe had not used Whiteacre in 9 years, so there was no
way that Buyer was put on inqujr notice by going to the property to physically examine the
property, especially becuase no fence or other structure had ever been built to demonstmte
someone else owned the land. In this case Buyer truly did not have any notice of the conveyance.
However, Abe will argue that Buyer's stutus is irrelevant, because he took from a donee
beneficiary who never had title to transfer. Under the Shelter rule, a person who takes from a
Good faith puchaser for value without notice can shelter under that person's right to own the
property, whehter they were a purchaser without notice or not. Herc however, Owen's daughter
was a donee beneficiary who took the propery without giving value for the property. Thus, she
never had any title to transfer to Buyer, and the transfer to Buyer is thus void, because Buyer
never had anything to shelter under. Buyer can sue Doris to recover the funds from the sale.
Overall, Abe probably owns the land, and will be sucesshl in an action to quiet title.
END OF EXAM