Property — statute of frauds

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Property — statute of frauds

A right of first refusal on “remaining acreage” is not specific enough to satisfy the statute of frauds.

“‘[R]emaining acreage’ is not sufficiently specific such that a person might know to a reasonable certainty from examining the offer to purchase which Born parcel or parcels the right of first refusal referred to. ‘[R]emaining acreage’ does not provide a key or link to what specific land attached to the right of first refusal, and therefore, any parol or extrinsic evidence would be improper as the evidence would be offered for what the parties intended rather than for what the written conveyance described.

“Parol evidence in the context of the statute of frauds does not operate to supply the fatal omissions of the writing but rather to render the writing intelligible. A clear distinction must be drawn between the proper admission of extrinsic evidence for the purpose of applying the description to identified property versus the improper supplying of a description or adding to a description that on its face is insufficient. 72 AM. JUR. 2D Statute of Frauds § 227 (2012). As the description ‘remaining acreage’ is, on its face, insufficient to identify the specific property, parol evidence would not be admissible under the statute of frauds.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP2368 303 LLC v. Born

Dist. II, Sheboygan County, Bourke, J., Reilly, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Ritger, Edward J., Random Lake; Kruger, Katherine J., Random Lake; For Respondent: Rich, Elizabeth G., Plymouth; Neuhaus, Julie Ann, Milwaukee