Facts: Petitioner Lois Martin filed suit against respondent Karl Seigel in the Superior Court for King County seeking specific performance of a contract to sell real estate. The trial court dismissed Martin’s claim, ruling that the earnest money receipt describing the property was insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds and therefore unenforceable. Martin appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): What information describing the property must be included in contracts selling or conveying real estate in order to satisfy the statute of frauds?

Conclusion: Justice Schwellenbach’s opinion for a unanimous Court held that, in addition to the other requirements of the statute of frauds, contracts transferring real estate must describe the property being transferred by its correct lot number, block number, addition, city, county, and state so as to provide a description adequate to locate the property without recourse to oral testimony. As the contract between Martin and Seigel did not include the property’s lot and block number, the Court held that it was unenforceable.

Docket No. 31097

Petitioner: Lois Martin

Respondent: Karl Seigel

Decided: Friday, December 9th, 1949

Prevailing Party: Karl Seigel (Respondent)

Vote: 9-0

Opinion: 35 Wn.2d 223 (1949)

Court: Simpson3 Court (1949-1950)

Simpson

Robinson

Mallery

Schwellenbach

Hill

Beals

Grady

Hamley

Donworth