Hunter owned a farm and was romantically involved with Green for a while, but they remained friends after the relationship ended. In 1996, Hunter was involved in a probate matter with his siblings. Concerned his siblings might sue him for attorney’s fees accrued from the probate litigation, Hunter decided to transfer the ownership of his farm to Green. Hunter states he and Green made an oral agreement that Green would convey the farm back to Hunter when Hunter asked for its return.

Hunter hired Attorney Geoffrey Albrecht to complete the transfer of the property. The real estate transfer documents contemplated the sale of the farm to Green for $135,000, with Hunter financing $115,000 of the purchase price. Attorney Albrecht prepared the documents for the sale of the farm to Green, including a real estate purchase contract, closing statement, warranty deed, real estate conveyance statement, and promissory note. Attorney Albrecht also prepared two promissory notes for $10,000 signed by Hunter and payable to Green on demand. The parties, however, never exchanged any money for the sale of the farm. The purchase contract, warranty deed, and promissory notes did not contain any language, as condition or exception, memorializing the alleged oral agreement between Hunter and Green that Green would convey the farm back to Hunter upon his demand.

Approximately three years later, Hunter asked for the property back, but Green refused. When he sued to obtain the farm, the trial court found that the statute of frauds prohibited the claim. Hunter appealed on grounds that the purchase contract, warranty deed, and promissory notes were sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. How do you think the appellate court ruled and why?