424 P.3d 731
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- The Hoag Living Trust (Trust) holds recorded title to Lot 2404; Jay (defendant) is Bonnie Sproul's grandson and lived/maintained adjacent Lot 2500 for decades.
- Jay alleges a long‑standing oral family plan: if he paid expenses and maintained Lots 2500/2404 (and 2401), those lots would be conveyed to him; he claims decades of payments and improvements.
- Jim and Muriel Hoag (settlors of the Trust, and Jay's parents) conveyed Lot 2404 to the Trust in 2013; they previously sold Lot 2401 in 1992 and listed Lot 2404 in 2006.
- The Trust sued in 2013 to quiet title to Lot 2404 and for an injunction preventing Jay from interfering with an easement across Lot 2500; Jay counterclaimed for breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the Trust on all claims and defenses; on appeal the court affirmed some rulings, reversed others, and remanded for fact issues as to quasi‑contract claims and injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Trust) | Defendant's Argument (Jay) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statute of frauds bars oral agreement claim and quiet title/counterclaim for breach of contract | Writing required for transfer of land; no enforceable writing exists | Oral family plan plus part performance (payments, improvements, letter) validates claim | Affirmed for Trust: statute of frauds bars enforcement; quiet title awarded to Trust; breach counterclaim dismissed |
| Whether quasi‑contract claims (unjust enrichment, quantum meruit) are barred by statute of frauds or limitations/laches | Claims are implied contract and therefore time‑barred (six‑year statute) or barred by laches | Statute of frauds does not bar restitution claims; payments and services continued into the six years before suit, so claims accrue later | Reversed dismissal: statute of frauds does not bar quasi‑contract; genuine fact issues on accrual/laches/statute of limitations — claims survive summary judgment |
| Whether fraud in the inducement claim survives summary judgment | Alleged promises induced reliance; question of intent to defraud | Jay admitted Jim later "changed his mind," lacking evidence of fraudulent intent at formation | Affirmed dismissal: fraud claim fails as a matter of law; Jay offered no evidence to rebut inference of changed mind rather than initial fraudulent intent |
| Whether permanent injunction was proper on summary judgment for interference with easement | Jay blocked/locked easement and impeded Trust's use; injunction necessary | Jay had provided keys, denies substantial obstruction, disputes facts about gate/obstacles | Reversed and remanded: disputed material facts exist about substantial interference; injunction inappropriate on summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- High v. Davis, 283 Or. 315 (interpretation/requirements for land description under statute of frauds)
- Burgdorf v. Weston, 259 Or. App. 755 (part‑performance standards to avoid statute of frauds)
- Kashmir v. Patterson, 43 Or. App. 45 (restitution/quantum meruit may survive statute of frauds)
- Larisa's Home Care, LLC v. Nichols‑Shields, 362 Or. 115 (approach to unjust enrichment: case‑by‑case matching to recognized patterns)
- Mattson v. Commercial Credit Business Loans, 301 Or. 407 (elements of laches defense)
- Angelini v. Delaney, 156 Or. App. 293 (unjust enrichment subject to laches; selecting analogous statute of limitations)
- Olson v. F & D Publishing Co., Inc., 160 Or. App. 582 (fraud in inducement requires evidence of intent not to perform at formation)
- Bolduc v. Thompson, 238 Or. App. 625 (standard for substantial interference with easement)