Summary 2010 WY 65

Summary of Decision issued May 24, 2010

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Simek v. Tate

Citation: 2010 WY 65

Docket Number: S-09-0177

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, the Honorable Keith G. Kautz, Judge.

Representing Simek: Andrea L. Richard of the Richard Law Firm, PC, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Tate: Larry B. Jones, William L. Simpson, and Chris D. Edwards of Simpson, Kepler & Edwards, LLC, the Cody, Wyoming division of Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, PC.

Facts/Discussion: This was an appeal from a district court order enforcing an oral settlement agreement requiring Simek to purchase certain real property from Tate (the Estate). There were two agreements: one from 2003 that was written and required the approval from the Illinois Probate Court and one from 2005 that was an oral settlement.

Simek’s motion for hearing: The Court affirmed the district court on the issue of the telephonic hearing because the numerous hearings provided the parties with ample opportunity to present evidence; the record revealed no reasons Simek, his witness, and attorney could not appear in person at the hearing; the parties consented; Simek showed no prejudice; the newly assigned district judge reviewed all the evidence that had been presented at all the hearings; and Yaekle v. Andrews stands for the proposition that a hearing is required if the terms or existence of a settlement agreement are in dispute not that a telephonic hearing is insufficient under such circumstances.
Simek’s motion to enforce earlier settlement agreement: The 2003 Agreement did not receive the required approval of the Illinois Probate Court. It therefore became void. The fact that some terms of the two agreements were inconsistent with one another was legally meaningless and had nothing to do with the question of whether the parties reached an oral settlement in 2005 or with the question of whether the 2005 Agreement should have been enforced. (There was extensive e-mail discussion between the attorneys regarding which agreement was in force.)
Estate’s motion to enforce settlement agreement despite statute of frauds: The district court concluded that the 2005 Agreement existed and that it was saved from the statute of frauds as a result of the doctrine of partial performance. The Court looked at the relations of the parties; the nature of the parol agreement; and the relative benefit and detriment derived by the parties. The district court concluded that the parties intended for their agreement to be effective upon its oral consummation. The issue became whether the Estate’s acts in partial performance of the 2005 Agreement were sufficient to estop Simek from asserting the statute of frauds as a defense, especially when coupled with Simek’s failure to disclaim the agreement in the face of that conduct. The Estate acted to its detriment in reliance upon the agreement by relinquishing possession of the property to Simek for several months, by allowing repeated access, and by informing the court that the civil action had been settled. Under the circumstances of the instant case, the court stated the acts of partial performance were sufficient to invoke equity to enforce the oral agreement.

Conclusion: The district court did not err in holding the final evidentiary hearing with one party and its witnesses appearing in person and the other party and its witnesses appearing by telephone. The district court also did not err in denying Simek’s motion to enforce the 2003 Agreement, which agreement was void due to its rejection by the Illinois Probate Court. Finally, the district court did not err in enforcing the parties’ oral 2005 Agreement inasmuch as the equitable doctrine of partial performance took the agreement out from the statute of frauds.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/278zupe .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance using the Universal Citation format, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]