Hoag Living Trust v. Hoag

"A party who relies on partial performance must show, '[1] the existence of an agreement that is clear and unambiguous in its terms, [2] that the partial performance unequivocally and exclusively refers to the agreement, and [3] that there are equitable grounds for enforcing the agreement.' Burgdorf v. Weston, 259 Or App 755, 758, 316 P3d 303 (2013)."

Jay Hoag appealed a trial court ruling granting summary judgment to the Hoag Living Trust granting preliminary and permanent injunctions.  Jay assigned error to the court's granting of summary judgment, to the court's use of discretion in denying a continuance motion, and to the court's granting of preliminary and permanent injunctions.  Jay argued that his partial performance in upkeeping and paying taxes on Lot 2404 was enough that it "confirm[ed] his role in the family plan."  Jay also argued that his ownership stake in the land in question was such that the Trust was unjustly enriched because it did not show any intention of reimbursing him for the money or labor that he invested in the property.  "A party who relies on partial performance must show, '[1] the existence of an agreement that is clear and unambiguous in its terms, [2] that the partial performance unequivocally and exclusively refers to the agreement, and [3] that there are equitable grounds for enforcing the agreement.' Burgdorf v. Weston, 259 Or App 755, 758, 316 P3d 303 (2013)."  The Court held that the Trust had quiet title and succeeded in their counterclaims against breach of contract and fraud because Jay was unable to show that any writing existed to support his claim or his partial performance claim, but that a case existed on the claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.  Portions of the judgment granting plaintiff injunctive relief and dismissing defendant's counterclaims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.