Verbal breach of contract

[quincy]

Déjà vu!

Here again the OP is being shortsightedly told that whereas his erstwhile "friend" can readily prove that the OP's continuous possession of the truck for three years and his payment of the loan installments was because of a verbal lease agreement. . . .

Whereas the OP is incapable of proving that the verbal agreement was not a lease but a purchase agreement - the purchase price deferred in the form of the loan installments - with the title to be endorsed over upon satisfaction of the loan. (The performance of which, incidentally removes it from any applicable statute of frauds.)

AND thus thoughtlessly denying the OP his equitable remedy of procuring a court order imposing a constructive trust upon the title and ordering the "friend" to endorse it over as agreed.

Here is a link to an Ohio Supreme Court Opinion (wasn't this pointed out to you previously?):

https://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-Ohio-2057.pdf

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? I live in ohio. I was buying a truck from a friend who only had it for a few months but had gotten a loan to get it he decided he no longer wanted it. But i needed a vehicle our verbal agreement was I was to pay him and he was to continue on his loan and do this until loan paid off I paid him every month for 3 years with four payments left he sent me a message reminding me of my due date which was in two days. But later that same day showed up with police and took the truck back stating I was not paying I have messages to prove I paid and messages to prove they took it early but most of my evidence is through text messaging is that strong enough. Or any advice that may help.

Advice? Mine is that you ignore the naysayers telling you that you have no legal recourse. In stead talk to you attorney about filing a lawsuit against the jerk to ask that the court to impose a constructive trust upon his title. Your lawyer will explain what that means.

Also make sure that the lawyers knows about the "friend's" statement to the police that "you were not paying". Even though he was mistakenly assuming you hadn't tendered that particular payment, the importance of it is that he has thereby confirmed that you were in fact providing the source for those loan payments.

So don't despair; there may be a way out of the woods. And you should be moving quickly.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

 

[quincy]

Advice? Mine is that you ignore the naysayers telling you that you have no legal recourse. In stead talk to you attorney about filing a lawsuit against the jerk to ask that the court to impose a constructive trust upon his title. Your lawyer will explain what that means.

Also make sure that the lawyers knows about the "friend's" statement to the police that "you were not paying". Even though he was mistakenly assuming you hadn't tendered that particular payment, the importance of it is that he has thereby confirmed that you were in fact providing the source for those loan payments.

So don't despair; there may be a way out of the woods. And you should be moving quickly.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Latigo seems awfully willing to spend your money on an attorney. I will not discourage an attorney's personal review because a personal review could help clarify for you where you stand legally. Obviously latigo believes you have more to support a claim to the truck than I do.

 

[latigo]

Latigo seems awfully willing to spend your money on an attorney. . . .

Before you accuse me of barratry I suggest that you read your cited Ohio case of Olympic Holding Company v. Ace Limited, et al. Because if you do, you won't find anything parallel to the facts presented in the case at hand.

The essence of the ruling in Olympic Holding was that in transactions included within the statute of frauds a proponent of such a transaction may not use "promissory estoppel" to bar the opposing party from asserting the affirmative defense of the statute of frauds.

In other words, an agreement that needs to be signed by the party sought to be bound by the agreement cannot be enforced merely because of any verbal promises or statements of future intent even though the statements may amount to a promissory estoppel.

But Olympic Holding DOES NOT support your position that the affirmative defense of a statute of fraud is impervious to the equitable doctrine of partial performance.

In fact Ohio expressly recognizes that partial performance of a verbal agreement can remove it from the statute of frauds. Example, among others is Saber Healthcare, LLC v. Starkey, Ohio Court of Appeals No. H-09-022, 210-Ohio-1778 and the cases therein cited:

"Ohio courts have consistently recognized the doctrine of part performance as an exception to the statute of frauds. Beaver Park Assoc. v. Larry Stein Realty Co. (Aug. 30, 1995), 2d Dist. No. 14950. When applicable, this equitable doctrine operates to remove a contract from the operation of the statute of frauds."

[/B] The Ohio Supreme Court has held that equity "intervenes to render the statute of frauds inoperative * * * * when a failure to enforce the contract will result in fraud and injury." Tier v. Singrey (1951), 154 Ohio St. 521.

 

[quincy]

Before you accuse me of barratry I suggest that you read your cited Ohio case of Olympic Holding Company v. Ace Limited, et al. Because if you do, you won't find anything parallel to the facts presented in the case at hand.

The essence of the ruling in Olympic Holding was that in transactions included within the statute of frauds a proponent of such a transaction may not use "promissory estoppel" to bar the opposing party from asserting the affirmative defense of the statute of frauds.

In other words, an agreement that needs to be signed by the party sought to be bound by the agreement cannot be enforced merely because of any verbal promises or statements of future intent even though the statements may amount to a promissory estoppel.

But Olympic Holding DOES NOT support your position that the affirmative defense of a statute of fraud is impervious to the equitable doctrine of partial performance.

In fact Ohio expressly recognizes that partial performance of a verbal agreement can remove it from the statute of frauds. Example, among others is Saber Healthcare, LLC v. Starkey, Ohio Court of Appeals No. H-09-022, 210-Ohio-1778 and the cases therein cited:

"Ohio courts have consistently recognized the doctrine of part performance as an exception to the statute of frauds. Beaver Park Assoc. v. Larry Stein Realty Co. (Aug. 30, 1995), 2d Dist. No. 14950. When applicable, this equitable doctrine operates to remove a contract from the operation of the statute of frauds."

[/B] The Ohio Supreme Court has held that equity "intervenes to render the statute of frauds inoperative * * * * when a failure to enforce the contract will result in fraud and injury." Tier v. Singrey (1951), 154 Ohio St. 521.

And I think YOU pointed that out in the previous thread, too.

I have my doubts a case can be had here, latigo, but I don't discourage a personal review by an attorney in Ohio. If there is a chance Kristenlynn can keep the truck, the money probably would be well spent.

 

[Sufou]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? I live in ohio. I was buying a truck from a friend who only had it for a few months but had gotten a loan to get it he decided he no longer wanted it. But i needed a vehicle our verbal agreement was I was to pay him and he was to continue on his loan and do this until loan paid off I paid him every month for 3 years with four payments left he sent me a message reminding me of my due date which was in two days. But later that same day showed up with police and took the truck back stating I was not paying I have messages to prove I paid and messages to prove they took it early but most of my evidence is through text messaging is that strong enough. Or any advice that may help.

You have proof of payments? Texting messages can be proof yes. Always get it all in writing...always always draw up some document and all parties involved should sign.

 

[Sufou]

Advice? Mine is that you ignore the naysayers telling you that you have no legal recourse. In stead talk to you attorney about filing a lawsuit against the jerk to ask that the court to impose a constructive trust upon his title. Your lawyer will explain what that means.

Also make sure that the lawyers knows about the "friend's" statement to the police that "you were not paying". Even though he was mistakenly assuming you hadn't tendered that particular payment, the importance of it is that he has thereby confirmed that you were in fact providing the source for those loan payments.

So don't despair; there may be a way out of the woods. And you should be moving quickly.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Fully agree with Latigo.

 

[quincy]

Fully agree with Latigo.

Because latigo did not make any definitive statements and said there "may be a way out of the woods," it is hard not to agree. A personal review by an attorney in Ohio can better determine if partial performance can overcome the statute of fraud.

 

[Sufou]

Déjà vu!

Here again the OP is being shortsightedly told that whereas his erstwhile "friend" can readily prove that the OP's continuous possession of the truck for three years and his payment of the loan installments was because of a verbal lease agreement. . . .

Whereas the OP is incapable of proving that the verbal agreement was not a lease but a purchase agreement - the purchase price deferred in the form of the loan installments - with the title to be endorsed over upon satisfaction of the loan. (The performance of which, incidentally removes it from any applicable statute of frauds.)

AND thus thoughtlessly denying the OP his equitable remedy of procuring a court order imposing a constructive trust upon the title and ordering the "friend" to endorse it over as agreed.

Excellent info.

 

[quincy]

Excellent info.

latigo does his research.

I am sure he will be pleased to know you like his postings.