Cuzdey v. Landes
Washington Court of Appeals
198 Wash. App. 1033 (2017)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Patricia Landes (plaintiff) and Benny Landes purchased a parcel of real property in 1983. In 1984, the Landeses allegedly orally conveyed title to the parcel to their son-in-law, Patrick Cuzdey (plaintiff), in exchange for physical, mechanical, and construction work. From 1984 to 1997, Patrick and his wife, Karla, the Landeses’ daughter, resided in a mobile home on the property that had been purchased and installed by the Landeses. In 1997, the Landeses installed and moved into a new manufactured home on the property. During Patrick’s occupancy, he performed clearing work and helped construct outbuildings; however, all work was permitted and paid for by the Landeses, and the Landeses paid all necessary property taxes. Benny died in 2001, and Patricia inherited Benny’s interest in the property. In 2014, Patrick and Karla divorced. The divorce decree did not mention any ownership interests in real property. Shortly after, Karla moved out of the mobile home, and Patricia served Patrick with a notice to vacate tenancy. Patrick filed a quiet-title petition based on the 1984 oral contract, arguing that he was entitled to ownership because he had performed the promised physical, mechanical, and construction work. The trial court granted Patricia’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Patrick’s quiet-title action was barred by the statute of frauds because it was based solely on an alleged oral contract to purchase real property.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mann, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.