Waddle v. Elrod

367 S.W.3d 217 (2012)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On January 29, 2007, Regent sued octogenarian Earline Waddle, and her niece, Lorene Elrod. Regent contracted to purchase approximately four acres of real property from Waddle. Regent paid Waddle $10,000 earnest money when the contract was signed. Regent learned of a quitclaim deed by which Waddle had conveyed one-half of her interest in the property to Elrod. Regent sued Waddle, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and intentional and negligent misrepresentation. Regent requested specific performance, $1,000,000 in damages, attorney's fees, costs, and pre-judgment interest. Regent also asked the trial court to set aside the quitclaim deed, arguing that Elrod had wrongfully obtained her one-half interest by exercising undue influence over Waddle. On May 14, 2007, Waddle (P) filed a cross-claim against Elrod (D), also alleging that D had acquired her one-half interest in the property through undue influence. D denying all allegations of undue influence and wrongdoing and arguing that assistance she had provided P served as consideration for the quitclaim deed. Regent agreed to dismiss its claims against P and D. P agreed to return the $10,000 earnest money, and both P and D agreed that Regent would not be responsible for any portion of the court costs. The day before trial D was willing to return her one-half interest in the property. Through her attorney, P agreed to settle the case on the condition that she would not be responsible for any of the court costs. The attorneys exchanged emails about the settlement. The emails were short and to the point and outlines the settlement agreement with electronic signatures of the attorneys. The attorneys thereafter advised the trial court of the terms of the agreement. The trial court canceled the jury trial and excused prospective jurors. P prepared and forwarded the settlement documents to D. Approximately three weeks later, D advised her attorney that she had changed her mind and refused to sign the settlement documents, D's attorney moved to withdraw from further representation, and the trial court granted that motion. D motioned to enforce the agreement. The trial court found that d had agreed through her attorney and authorized agent to settle the case on the terms set out in the June 1, 2009 email. D appealed and argued that the Statute of Frauds precludes enforcement of the settlement agreement. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment as the Statute of Frauds applies only to 'any contract for the sale of lands.' D appealed