Sullivan v. Porter

• The Porter couple = "Porter" = owner of a 52-acre farm
• Ms. Sullivan = "Sullivan" managed the stables on the Porter farm = buyer
• In August 2000, Porter verbally offered to sell the entire farm to Sullivan for $350,000 with a $20,000 down payment & a financing rate between 5% to 7%
• Sullivan (buyer) verbally accepted Porter's offer
• Sullivan announced that they would refinance their home to obtain the down payment for the Porter farm
• In September 2000, Porter moved out, giving the keys to Sullivan
• Sullivan moved in, making improvements to the stables & trails
• In November, Sullivan tendered $10,000 towards the down payment
• At that point, Porter refused to accept the money until the paperwork was ready; nevertheless, Porter did accept $3,000
• Sullivan, opened their business on the farm & continued renovating the farm
• In June 2005, Sullivan sent Porter an appraisal valuing the farm at only $250,000; at the same time, Sullivan stated that they would abide by their side of the contract
• Having seen the lowered appraisal at $250,000, Porter dug in his heels and demanded an even higher price of $450,000 for the farm

• Sullivan sued Porter seeking an order for specific performance.
• At the Maine state trial court, the court ordered Porter to execute a purchase contract at the original $350,000
• Porter lost

Is the part-performance doctrine an exception to the statute of frauds requirement that real property transfers must be in writing?

Yes. The part-performance doctrine constitutes an exception to the statute of frauds requirement that real property transfers must be in writing.

Affirmed

equitable estoppel