When is an Agreement Not Enforceable: a Look at Arkansas Statute of Frauds

Posted by Bob at 18 February, 2010, 3:31 pm

By: Robert A. Ballinger, Attorney at Law, Director of Operations, King River Title and Abstract

Arkansas’ statute of frauds, ARK. CODE ANN. § 4-59-101(a)(4), requires that any contract for the sale of land, or any interest concerning such land, be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. ARK. CODE ANN. § 4-59-101(a)(4). To meet the requirements of a valid contract for the sale of real estate within ARK. CODE ANN. § 4-59-101(a)(4), the written agreement must include the essential terms and conditions of the sale. Tate v. Clark, 203 Ark. 231, 156 S.W.2d 218 (1941); Van Dyke v. Glover, 326 Ark. 736, 934 S.W.2d 204 (1996). Arkansas’ general rule with respect to the statute of frauds also has been stated another way:

Unless the essential terms of the sale can be ascertained from the writing itself, or by reference in it to something else, the writing is not in compliance with the statute; and if the writing be thus defective, it cannot be supplied by parol proof, for that would at once introduce all the mischiefs which the statute was intended to prevent.

Van Dyke, 326 Ark. at 742-743, 934 S.W.2d at 208 (1996), citing Sorrells v. Bailey Cattle Co., 268 Ark. 800, 811-12, 595 S.W.2d 950 (1980), (quoting Williams v. Morris, 95 U.S. 444, 24 L.Ed. 360 (1877)).

Arkansas law mandates that a contract for the sale of land “sufficiently describe the land to be sold.” Van Dyke, 326 Ark. at 742-743, 934 S.W.2d at 208 (1996); Boensch v. Cornett, 267 Ark. 671, 590 S.W.2d 55 (1979). This required description of land must be as definite and certain as that required to be found in a deed of conveyance. Sorrells v. Sorrells, 268 Ark. 800, 809-810, 595 S.W.2d 950, 954 (1980). With respect to the land description requirements for a deed, the Court in Sorrells quoted favorably from Tiffany, Real Property, 3rd Ed. which stated “if a conveyance does not describe the land with such particularity as to render identification possible, the conveyance is a nugatory.” Sorrells, supra; See also Boensch v. Cornett, 267 Ark. 671, 590 S.W.2d 55 (1979). If the document does not identify the land as “being in any county or even in the state. It does not furnish a key by which the land might be certainly identified . . . .” Turrentine v. Thompson, 193 Ark. 253 (1963). Even if the property could be identified by oral testimony, a contract for the sale of land comes within the statute of frauds, ARK. CODE ANN. § 4-59-101, and must therefore be in writing to be enforceable. A document which is in violation of Arkansas’ statute of frauds is unenforceable and void. Sorrells, 268 Ark. at 818.

Category : Education & Information | General Legal News