Hurtubise v. McPherson

Robert Hurtubise (plaintiff) and Scott McPherson (defendant) owned adjoining lots. Hurtubise operated a storage business and sought to build an additional shed along the boundary dividing his property from McPherson’s. Hurtubise and McPherson orally agreed to a trade in which each would receive a portion of the other’s land, with the portion received by Hurtubise being the site of the proposed shed. Both areas were designated, though specific boundaries and dimensions were not specified. Hurtubise then commenced construction of the shed, which took eight weeks and cost nearly $40,000. During this time, Hurtubise observed McPherson on the site, and McPherson raised no objections. However, after construction, McPherson stated that the shed extended several feet further into his property than originally planned. McPherson demanded $250,000, which Hurtubise refused to pay. McPherson notified the town’s building commission, which revoked Hurtubise’s building permit and ordered Hurtubise to cease occupancy of the shed. McPherson also threatened to demolish the shed. Hurtubise brought suit for specific performance of the oral contract. McPherson raised the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense. The superior-court judge ordered McPherson to complete the agreed-upon exchange of land. McPherson appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.