89 Va. Cir. 488
Nelson Cir. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiffs originally challenged two papers purporting to be the will of Elizabeth Huff Puckett; they later withdrew the relief on Count I.
- Count II alleges an oral contract to devise Mrs. Puckett's real and personal property to the plaintiffs in exchange for care during her lifetime.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment on Count II, which the court denied because material facts remain in dispute.
- The court notes that an oral contract to devise land can be avoided by the Statute of Frauds only if there is definite terms and corroborating part performance, per Virginia law.
- Discovery reveals disputes over the definiteness of the alleged contract and whether there was true part performance versus employment-based services, making summary judgment inappropriate.
- The court also addressed a motion to amend to assert quantum meruit, ultimately finding prejudice to the defendant in allowing such amendment and noting the case’s proximity to trial; it directs the case remain as a bench trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count II survives summary judgment | Puckett contract was definite; there was part performance. | Contract insufficiently definite; lack of corroboration of parol agreement; no clear part performance. | Summary judgment denied; disputed facts remain |
| Whether the oral contract to devise complies with Dead Man's Statute and Statute of Frauds | There was a definite parol contract and corroborating conduct. | Allegations lack precision; not enough corroboration. | Issues remain; cannot grant summary judgment |
| Whether quantum meruit is adequately pleaded | Quantum meruit claims should allow recovery for services. | Plaintiffs must plead an implied contract; quantum meruit as standalone claim is inadequately pleaded. | Inadequate pleading; deny amendment to assert quantum meruit |
| Whether attorney’s fees are recoverable | Fees may be recoverable under contract or statute. | American rule bars fee shifting absent contract or statute. | Attorney’s fees dismissed |
| Whether the case should proceed as a bench trial | Jury trial rights apply to contract claims. | Express contract theory predominates; bench trial appropriate. | Case remains for bench trial; order to reflect bench-trial status |
Key Cases Cited
- Fultz v. Delhaize America, Inc., 278 Va. 84 (Va. 2009) (summary judgment requires no material disputes)
- Renner v. Stafford, 245 Va 351 (Va. 1983) (summary judgment should not short-circuit trial)
- Virginia Home for Boys & Girls v. Phillips, 279 Va. 279 (Va. 2010) (parol contract to devise land may be taken out of Statute of Frauds with part performance and certainty)
- Beach v. Virginia National Bank, 235 Va. 376 (Va. 1988) (lack of specificity in an oral agreement defeats enforceability)
- Woodbridge v. Outland, 212 Va. 157 (Va. 1971) (oral contract to convey real estate must be precise in terms)
- Southern Biscuit Co. v. Lloyd, 174 Va. 299 (Va. 1940) (express contract precludes existence of implied contract)
- Virginia Beach Home for Boys & Girls v. Phillips, 279 Va. 279 (Va. 2010) (see above (same case cited for parol contract and corroboration doctrine))
- Marine Dev. Corp. v. Rodak, 225 Va. 137 (Va. 1983) (implied contract requirements for quantum meruit)
- Cochran v. Bise, 197 Va. 483 (Va. 1955) (pleading requirements for implied contracts)
- Piney Meeting House Invs., Inc. v. Hart, 284 Va. 187 (Va. 2012) (attorney’s fees and contract/claims analysis in Va.)