Statute of Frauds - Legal Description Requirements Strictly Enforced

A recent Division One Court of Appeals case highlights the importance of including an unambiguous legal description in any contract for the sale of real property. The Court has once again strictly enforced the Statute of Frauds, which requires a description of the land to be transferred that is sufficiently definite to locate it without recourse to oral testimony. The parties in Dick Bedlington Real Estate, L.L.C. v. Tawes, No. 59387-1-I (2008) (unpublished) entered into two separate purchase and sale agreements. In the first agreement, the seller agreed to sell a parcel of land of approximately 88 acres, with 3 acres reserved to the seller. The "approximate" location of the land reserved to the seller was noted, along with a statement that "[t]he exact configuration shall be approved by the parties prior to closing." In the second agreement, the seller agreed to sell "3 acres" of a larger parcel that was described in the agreement.

The Court held that the legal descriptions in both agreements were deficient under the Statute of Frauds because they did not contain enough information to locate the land to be sold. The court refused to read the two agreements together to cure this deficiency, and held that the agreements were void and unenforceable.

 

Tags:

Development Buffers under the Endangered Species Act?

A consultation under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) could potentially impact development on property near shorelines in Washington State. In response to a consultation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a biological opinion concluding that FEMA's administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in the Puget Sound area violates the ESA because it jeopardizes a number of protected aquatic species. Specifically, NMFS concluded that FEMA’s decision to insure certain floodplain developments under the NFIP threatens the habitat of certain protected salmon, steelhead, and whales.

FEMA should now take steps to mitigate the effects of the NFIP on protected species. In administering the NFIP, FEMA already promulgates minimum land use controls, and municipalities must implement land use controls that are at least as restrictive in order to qualify for flood insurance. In its biological opinion, NMFS suggested FEMA promulgate a specific set of development standards in floodplain areas—including, notably, a 150-foot development buffer from certain shorelines. FEMA has not yet acted on the suggestions set forth in the biological opinion, but it may choose to require municipalities to impose these, or other, stricter development standards in floodplain areas.

The biological opinion (238 pages total), is available on NOAA’s webpage

 

Development Buffers under the Endangered Species Act?