Contract Transfer of Title to Real Property

What advice R.J. is likely to give Padrina depends predominantly upon whether she and Orande have an enforceable agreement.

For a contract involving an agreement to transfer title to real property, as here, to be enforceable, more than offer, acceptance and consideration must be present. The contract must also comply with the Statute of Frauds.

The Statute of Frauds requires that either the contract or some memorandum of it is in writing and that writing is signed by the party to be charged. The writing must also contain sufficient evidence of the contract's terms.

Here, we are told to assume there is a contract. However, there is no mention or evidence that the contract is in writing. So, we need to see if we have a written memorandum of the contract.

A memorandum can be any writing that relates to the subject. Here, our subject is the sale of title to the property and Padrina's note refers to that. Therefore, we have a writing.

But, do we have a signature of the party to be charged? A signature may be any form of signing, initials or mark made by the party to be charged to acknowledge the contract's terms. The party to be charged usually is the one who refuses to comply with the contract's terms. Since one usually does not know who that is when the parties originally enter into the contract, it is prudent to have all parties sign.

Here, we have not yet had anyone refuse to comply with the contract. And, we are told Padrina signed both copies. But, has Orande signed? The facts show he initialed both copies in response to Padrina's note asking him to do that "so as to confirm these terms." As a result, it is likely his initials constitute a signing that the statute calls for.

The next question is whether the sign...

... middle of paper ...

...er getting that loan. As a result, it probably includes that term.

The note is silent as to whether there are to be any inspections. But, the facts do not show Padrina even wanted them. So, there is evidence this was not material. Therefore, it would not be included in this memorandum of their contract.

Considering all of the above it is likely a court would find that Padrina and Orande had a memorandum of their contract for the purchase and sale of CALIacre with its attached apartment, that the memorandum was signed by both of them, thereby including either who might end up being the party to be charged, and that the memorandum included sufficient terms to evidence the existence of their contract. As a result, their contract complied with the Statute of frauds.

In light of the foregoing, R.J. most likely will advise Padrina they had an enforceable contract.