Owens v. M.E. Schepp Ltd. Partnership

¶ 44 Although the Majority correctly states that the part-performance exception to the statute of frauds requires acts “unequivocally referable” to the oral contract, my colleagues misapply that principle by failing to consider whether Schepp Partnership’s alleged acts of part performance standing alone are unequivocally referable to the oral partition agreement rather than as colored by Hal’s purported promises. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.

¶45 In assessing whether an act is “unequivocally referable” to an oral agreement, the court must examine only the act itself to make this…