Timberlake v. Heflin
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
379 S.E.2d 149 (1989)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Richard Timberlake (plaintiff) and Sherry Heflin (defendant) were married and owned a two-bedroom condominium together as joint tenants with right of survivorship. When Richard and Sherry decided to divorce, they agreed that Sherry should get ownership of their car, motorcycle, and other personal property and that Richard should get ownership of the condominium. Sherry was to execute and deliver a deed transferring her interest in the home to Richard. Sherry filed for divorce, and the divorce complaint included an averment by Sherry that identified the location of the condominium and stated that she agreed to convey her interest in the home to Richard. Richard took no further action in regard to the property in reliance on their parol agreement for the transfer of the property and this averment. But when the divorce decree was finalized, it made no disposition of the condominium. Richard brought a complaint to enforce the parol agreement. Sherry and her new husband filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the statute of frauds barred enforcement of Richard’s claim. The lower court dismissed Richard’s claim after finding that the statute of frauds applied. Richard appealed. After the appeal was granted, Richard died, and the executor of his estate, Roxanne Timberlake, was substituted as the appellant.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, 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.