Exception to Statute of Frauds Validates Oral Contract for Sale of Property

Using the equitable partial performance exception to the statue of frauds, the Dallas Court of Appeals has upheld an oral contract for transfer of real property. In Beard v. Anderson, Cause No. 05-14-00396-CV (Tex. App.— Dallas June 19, 2015), the Court heard a dispute between family members regarding 2.89 acres of real property in Kaufman County, Texas. Plaintiff, Defendants’ aunt, sued Defendants seeking specific performance or, in the alternative, damages associated with transfer of the property. According to Plaintiff, the parties came to an agreement in 2010 to transfer the property from Defendants to Plaintiff, but never signed any documents memorializing the transaction. Plaintiff began living in her RV on the property, spent money to improve the property, and continued to attempt to negotiate a written agreement for transfer of the property. After communications between Plaintiff and Defendants ceased, Defendants served Plaintiff with a notice to vacate the premises. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit. The statute of frauds requires a contract for sale of real estate to be in writing and signed by

Arbitrator Fails to Fully Disclose Potential Conflicts

In determining that an arbitrator may be deposed after issuing his award, the Dallas Court of Appeals examined the standards for allowing post-award discovery to examine “evident partiality.” It also examined the evidentiary value of unsworn statements made by attorneys in court. In Fatima Rodas v. La Madeleine of Texas, Inc., Cause No. 05-14-00054-CV, an employee of La Madeleine, Rodas, sued La Madeleine for injuries she sustained on the job. La Madeleine compelled arbitration of the dispute. The arbitrator issued a take nothing award against Rodas. After the award was issued, Rodas filed a motion to vacate, arguing the arbitrator failed to disclose another arbitration he was presiding over and in which La Madeleine’s counsel was representing one of the parties. Rodas sought to depose the arbitrator about the undisclosed contact, but La Madeleine and the arbitrator opposed the discovery. During hearings on whether Rodas could depose the arbitrator, the arbitrator’s attorney disclosed that La Madeleine’s attorneys had two other arbitrations, not just one, with the arbitrator and provided inconsistent information about the