Simek v. Tate

Summary

The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed an order enforcing an oral settlement agreement under which Ronald Simek was required to purchase residential real property from the Estate of Carol B. Brehm. The court held that the 2003 settlement was void because required Illinois probate court approval was denied, while the 2005 oral settlement was enforceable because the Estate's partial performance and Simek's possession and use of the property took the agreement outside the statute of frauds. The court also upheld the use of a telephonic supplemental evidentiary hearing.

Holdings

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by conducting the supplemental evidentiary hearing with Simek and his witnesses appearing by telephone because the parties had already had ample opportunities to present evidence, consented to the procedure, and Simek showed no prejudice.
2. The 2003 settlement agreement was void and could not be enforced because it was expressly conditioned on approval by the Illinois Probate Court and that approval was denied.
3. An oral settlement agreement for the sale of real property may be enforced despite the statute of frauds when the agreement is definite and complete and the seller's substantial partial performance, together with the buyer's conduct, equitably estops the buyer from asserting the statute as a defense.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by conducting the supplemental evidentiary hearing telephonically for Simek and his witnesses rather than requiring their personal appearance.
2. Whether the district court erred by denying Simek's motion to enforce the 2003 written settlement agreement.
3. Whether the district court erred by enforcing the oral 2005 settlement agreement despite Wyoming's statute of frauds.

Disposition

affirmed