Trosen v. Trosen
2014 ND 7
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Shirley owned farmland and separately leased tracts to her sons, Jeff and Brent. A 2008 written "Farm Lease" between Shirley and Jeff covered 2008–2010 but did not state rent; family custom was $65 per tillable acre determined annually by FSA.
- In 2010 Jeff failed to pay rent; Shirley and Brent agreed Brent would operate in 2010 and FSA listed Brent as operator; Shirley and Brent later signed a purported lease through 2015.
- On January 1, 2011 Shirley and Jeff signed a Farm Lease form re‑extending the lease through 2013; the form omitted an express rent term. Jeff later wrote $28,522 and a memo “2011 farm land” on a check and made a handwritten note on the lease showing 438.8 tillable acres and $28,522 annual payment.
- Shirley first notified FSA to list Jeff as operator (FSA letter Jan 6, 2011), then within days reversed course and FSA removed Jeff and relisted Brent; Shirley never cashed Jeff’s check and eventually returned it.
- Jeff sued for breach of contract, intentional interference with contractual relations (jury), and equitable relief (bench). After a 5‑day jury trial, defendants moved under Rule 50; the district court found the Jan 1, 2011 lease invalid under the statute of frauds, granted Rule 50 as to legal claims, and later denied equitable relief; judgment dismissed all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Jan 1, 2011 lease satisfies the statute of frauds | Jeff: written lease plus later notations and conduct show a valid 3‑year lease | Shirley/Brent: writing lacks essential terms (no express consideration), so statute of frauds bars it | Court: Lease barred by statute of frauds for legal claims because writing omitted consideration; Rule 50 properly granted |
| Whether parol evidence can supply missing rent term to satisfy statute of frauds | Jeff: parol evidence/industry custom ($65/acre) can supply omitted terms | Defs: essential terms cannot be supplied by parol to remove statute of frauds bar | Court: Parol evidence cannot supply an essential term (consideration) to satisfy statute of frauds for a legal claim |
| Whether partial performance removes statute of frauds for money‑damages claims | Jeff: partial acts (tendered rent check; FSA listing) are consistent only with lease existence and remove statute of frauds | Defs: partial performance is equitable and cannot support an action at law for damages | Court: Part‑performance rule is equitable only and inapplicable to legal claims for money; legal claims dismissed |
| Whether part performance supports equitable relief (specific performance / estoppel) | Jeff: tender of check and FSA change constitute part performance and equitable estoppel, so statute of frauds should be avoided | Defs: acts were Insufficient — check not cashed, FSA listing reversed, no change in plaintiff’s position or injustice | Court: On entire record, formation elements were met but part performance did not produce fraud or hardship; equitable relief denied (district court reached right result though some reasoning differed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stout v. Fisher Indus., Inc., 603 N.W.2d 52 (N.D. 1999) (writing must contain essential terms to satisfy statute of frauds)
- Johnson v. Auran, 214 N.W.2d 641 (N.D. 1974) (contract cannot rest partly in writing and partly in parol to satisfy statute of frauds)
- Zitzow v. Diederich, 337 N.W.2d 799 (N.D. 1983) (parol evidence may not supply missing essential term to remove statute of frauds bar)
- Cooke v. Blood Sys., Inc., 320 N.W.2d 124 (N.D. 1982) (part performance can remove statute of frauds for leases in equity)
- Forsman v. Blues, Brews and Bar‑B‑Ques, Inc., 820 N.W.2d 748 (N.D. 2012) (standard of review for Rule 50 motions)