Tommy and Eleanor Daves gave their daughter Lisa Baker the deed to a two-acre property with a house on it, keeping for themselves a life interest in the parcel. When they died, the property returned to their daughter. Two years later Tommy and Eleanor divorced and settled their affairs amicably. In court, with Baker watching from the second row, their lawyers informed the court of an agreement that all three parties had allegedly made to sell the 2-acre property. Baker would be reimbursed for taxes and insurance paid during her ownership and the three of them would split the remainder of the sale proceeds. After the agreement was announced in court Baker put the property on the market, but then withdrew it and refused to sell. Tommy sued Baker and she defended based on the Statute of Frauds. The trial court acknowledged that Baker had signed nothing, but found that the courtroom statements proved the parties had formed a binding contract. The judge ordered Baker to sell the house and she appealed.

Questions:

1. Was Lisa obligated to sell the house?

2. What is a life interest?

3. What evidence does the court rely on in ruling for Baker?

4. What argument did the Daves make based on the courtroom testimony?

5. Did they rely on anything else?

6. What is the significance of Baker listing the property for sale?

7. What is partial performance?

8. Why didn’t partial performance apply here?

9. Can’t the court construe listing the land for sale as proof of the oral agreement with her parents?

10. Isn't that unethical for Baker to ignore her promise? Shouldn't the law support ethics?