IZAGUIRRE v. HERRERA (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Indiana's Statute of Frauds generally requires the sale of land to be in writing in order for the sale to be enforceable. But there is an equitable exception to that general rule when one side partially performs on an oral contract. Here, Juan Herrera alleged that he had purchased land from Nelson Izaguirre without a written contract but had paid Izaguirre the full price for the purchase, lived on the property for several years thereafter, and had spent substantial costs improving the residence on the land. Those assertions, if credited by a fact-finder, would suffice to demonstrate that the partial-performance exception to the Statute of Frauds applies to Herrera's claim. We therefore affirm the trial court's decision on appeal for Herrera.

Facts and Procedural History 1

[2] In 2017, Herrera started dating Izaguirre's daughter, Maria, who lived with her father. Sometime thereafter, Izaguirre showed a parcel of land on which he had placed a mobile home to Herrera, and the two reached an agreement for Herrera to purchase the land and mobile home from Izaguirre for $20,000. The two did not reduce their agreement to writing.

[3] On June 1, 2018, Herrera began making payments to Izaguirre in accordance with their agreement. He also began remodeling the mobile home on the property. In particular, Herrera remodeled the “kitchen, dining room, living room, hallway, bedroom, [and] bathroom.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 54. He also improved the driveway and drainage around the mobile home. In total, Herrera spent about $12,000 remodeling the mobile home. In January 2020, Herrera paid the final installment of the $20,000 purchase price to Izaguirre.

[4] Herrera continued to live in the mobile home without issue for several years until he and Maria broke up in October 2022. At that point, Herrera asked Izaguirre to formally sign the deed to the property over to Herrera, but Izaguirre refused.

[5] Herrera sued Izaguirre for breach of contract in February 2023. In May 2024, the trial court held a jury trial on Herrera's complaint, and Herrera testified to the above facts. After the close of Herrera's case-in-chief, Izaguirre moved for a directed verdict on the theory that Herrera's claim was barred by the Statute of Frauds. The trial court granted Izaguirre's motion and entered judgment for Izaguirre. Herrera then filed a motion to correct error on the ground that his case-in-chief was sufficient to show that he satisfied the partial-performance exception to the Statute of Frauds. The trial court granted Herrera's motion to correct error, and this appeal ensued.

Standard of Review

[6] The standard of review applicable to a trial court's decision on a motion to correct error is a function of the ruling underlying the motion. See, e.g., Luxury Townhomes, LLC v. McKinley Props., Inc., 992 N.E.2d 810, 815 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. Here, the underlying ruling was on a motion for a directed verdict. As with summary judgments, we review the trial court's decision on a directed verdict de novo, and we consider the record in the manner most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Cosme v. Clark, 232 N.E.3d 1141, 1152 (Ind. 2024).

The trial court properly granted Herrera's motion to correct error.

[7] The only issue on appeal is whether Herrera's evidence in his case-in-chief sufficed to support a finding that the partial-performance exception to the Statute of Frauds could have applied to his claim against Izaguirre. It did.

[8] Indiana's Statute of Frauds generally provides that a person may not bring an action “involving any contract for the sale of land” unless that contract is “in writing and signed by the party against whom the action is brought ․” Ind. Code § 32-21-1-1(b)(4) (2017). The Statute of Frauds “is intended to preclude fraudulent claims that would probably arise when one person's word is pitted against another's” in such cases. Stephens v. Tabscott, 159 N.E.3d 634, 639 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quotation marks omitted).

[9] But oral contracts for the sale of land “are not void[ ] but voidable,” and the Statute of Frauds “affects only the enforceability of contracts that have not yet been performed.” Id. (emphasis added). Accordingly, oral contracts for the sale of land may be enforced by a court of equity under the doctrine of “part performance.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Under that doctrine, “[w]here one party to an oral contract in reliance on that contract has performed his part of the agreement to such an extent that repudiation of the contract would lead to an unjust or fraudulent result, equity will disregard the requirement of a writing” and instead will “enforce the oral agreement.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

[10] Herrera's evidence in his case-in-chief did more than show that he had performed his part of the oral agreement to a sufficient extent—it showed that he had fully performed his part of the agreement for the sale of the land. He testified that he paid Izaguirre the full $20,000. He also testified that he acted in substantial reliance on the oral agreement by investing about $12,000 in improving the residence and its curtilage. And, after paying Izaguirre the full $20,000 in January 2020, Herrera lived on the property for several years without issue until his relationship with Izaguirre's daughter came to an end.

[11] Accordingly, the trial court properly granted Herrera's motion to correct error and set aside its directed verdict for Izaguirre. Izaguirre's arguments to the contrary on appeal simply disregard the evidence most favorable to the nonmoving party, and we reject his arguments accordingly.

Conclusion

[12] For all of these reasons, we affirm the trial court's decision to grant Herrera's motion to correct error.

[13] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.