Earline Waddle v. Lorene B. Elrod
2012 Tenn. LEXIS 290
| Tenn. | 2012Background
- Regent sued Waddle and Elrod over a real property transaction involving the Prim Lane property; Waddle asserted undue influence claims via a cross-claim against Elrod.
- Elrod allegedly induced Waddle in 2001 to sign a quitclaim deed and a durable power of attorney transferring half the property to Elrod.
- In April 2009, Regent settled with Waddle and Elrod; Waddle agreed to return $10,000 and no party would pay court costs, while Waddle’s cross-claim remained.
- The day before trial, Elrod’s attorney proposed settlement terms; emails confirmed a deal: Elrod would deed back to Waddle, both sides would sign releases, Waddle would bear no court costs, and no admission of guilt.
- Waddle believed the settlement would be memorialized in a written order; Elrod later backed out, and enforcement of the settlement was sought.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the Statute of Frauds applies to settlements requiring transfer of real property, but that the emails under UETA satisfied the writing/signature requirement to enforce the settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Statute of Frauds apply to a settlement requiring transfer of real property? | Waddle contends S.O.F. governs whether such settlements are enforceable. | Elrod contends S.O.F. bars enforcement without a signed writing. | Yes, S.O.F. applies to settlements requiring real property transfer. |
| Do emails under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act satisfy the writing/signature requirement to enforce the settlement? | Emails plus cross-claim description evidence terms sufficiently. | Emails do not constitute a valid signed writing under S.O.F. without proper signature. | Yes; emails with attorney's typed name satisfy S.O.F. via UETA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambert v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 481 S.W.2d 770 (Tenn. 1972) (writing may satisfy the statute when connected to other writings)
- Gessler v. Winton, 145 S.W.2d 789 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1940) (signature on memorandum may be satisfied by typed name or stamp)
- Bailey v. Henry, 143 S.W. 1124 (Tenn. 1912) (broadly construed 'sale' to include any transfer of land)
- Cobble v. Langford, 230 S.W.2d 194 (Tenn. 1950) (parol contract enforceability under S.O.F. when memorandum exists)
- Huffine v. McCampbell, 257 S.W. 80 (Tenn. 1923) (S.O.F. as affirmative defense; writing not void but enforceability contested)
- Williams v. Buntin, 4 Tenn. App. 340 (1927) (memorandum may comprise multiple writings; form immaterial)