Rudinsky v. Harris
231 Ariz. 95
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Rudinsky, an Investor Ring agent for Green Light, sought commissions under an oral, implied-in-fact contract.
- Green Light allegedly promised to pay commissions indefinitely for deals involving Rudinsky’s buyers.
- The parties had no written contract; only separate referral fee agreements existed.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Green Light, ruling the oral contract was barred by the statute of frauds.
- Rudinsky appealed, challenging both the enforceability of the oral contract and the award of attorneys’ fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the oral contract falls within the statute of frauds | Rudinsky contends the oral agreement could be performed within a year | Green Light argues the contract cannot be performed within one year and is unenforceable | Yes; the contract cannot be performed within one year and is unenforceable. |
| Whether the doctrine of part performance applies | Part performance supports enforcing the oral contract for commissions | Part performance does not apply to money damages and cannot save the contract | No; part performance does not apply to a monetary contract claim. |
| Whether Green Light’s attorneys’ fees award was proper | Fees were improperly awarded given unresolved issues | Fees were appropriate as the contract claim prevailed for Green Light | Yes; the fee award was proper under A.R.S. § 12-341.01 and reasonable. |
| Whether the statute of frauds forecloses Rudinsky’s remaining claims | Statute-of-frauds defense should not bar all relief | Statute-of-frauds bars the oral claim entirely | Yes; the oral commission claim is barred by the statute of frauds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Western Chance No. 2, Inc. v. KFC Corp., 957 F.2d 1538 (9th Cir. 1992) (continuing obligation beyond one year bars enforceability under the statute of frauds)
- Shirley Polykoff Adver., Inc. v. Houbigant, Inc., 374 N.E.2d 625 (N.Y. 1978) (continuing obligation to pay may arise despite no termination within a year)
- Waugh v. Lennard, 211 P.2d 806 ((Ariz. 1949)) (contract may be performable within one year if possible)
- Rand v. Porsche Fin. Servs., 167 P.3d 111 (Ariz. App. 2007) (uncontested summary judgment rules and consequences for nonresponsive party)
- Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner, 694 P.2d 1181 (Ariz. 1985) (factors guiding attorneys’ fees awards under § 12-341.01)