Powell v. City of Newton
Supreme Court of North Carolina
703 S.E.2d 723 (2010)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
Around January 2005, the City of Newton (the city) (defendant) began constructing a park next to land owned by Powell (plaintiff). On December 2, 2005, Powell sued the city, alleging that the city’s agents trespassed on his property and removed hardwood trees. The case went to trial on November 12, 2007. On November 14, 2007, the parties reached a settlement by which Powell would receive $40,000.00 in exchange for a quitclaim deed to the disputed land. The city’s attorney reported the settlement to the court. The court confirmed with Powell that the agreement as described was Powell’s agreement. On November 21, 2007, the parties’ attorneys used email to memorialize the agreement. A final agreement was prepared and forwarded to Powell for his signature. Concurrently, the city sent $40,000.00 to Powell’s attorney. Powell refused to sign the agreement. The city moved for a court order requiring Powell to abide by the terms of the settlement agreement. Powell argued that the settlement agreement was void, because it was a contract for the sale of land that was not in writing and not signed by the party to be charged. The trial court ordered that Powell execute the final agreement. The court of appeals found that the writing satisfied the statute of frauds.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Edmunds, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.