LRWA carmichael analysis
Carmichael Analysis John Carmichael should be allowed to purchase the Rocking M Ranch (ranch). Although the Statute of Frauds (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 26.01 (West 2005)) makes oral contracts for the sale of land unenforceable, an common law exception is carved out for sales in which buyers pay consideration, make improvements, and demonstrate possession of the land. Hooks v. Bridgewater, 111 Tex. 122 (1921). The policy behind the statute itself is to prevent people from fraudulently claiming someone else’s property, but the exception is present in order to protect parties who reasonably believe that an oral sale of land was executed. Carmichael paid consideration and made improvements to the ranch, so only possession is at issue here. To determine whether a person has “possession” of a property the court considers four factors: (1) whether the buyer exercises control over the property adverse to the seller; (2) whether the buyer has an exclusive right to control the property; (3) whether the buyer pays for taxes and improvements, and; (4) whether the both parties publically acknowledges the transfer. Dawson v. Tumlinson, 242 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. 1951); Johnson v. Bridgewater, 140 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. Civ. App. 1940, writ dismissed); Sharp v. Stacy, 535 S.W.2d 345 (Tex. 1976); Thorton v. Central Loan Co., 164 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. Civ. App. 1942, writ refused). The court does not consider who occupies the property. Sharp, 535 S.W.2d at 348. The details of the oral agreement are also not considered. See Dawson, 242 S.W.2d 191; Johnson, 140 S.W.2d 282; Thorton, 164 S.W.2d 248; Id. Every factor is considered, but all of them need not be present. Johnson. Presently, Carmichael paid for taxes and improvements, but each other factor is at issue. In order to show control over a property, a buyer must demonstrate “open and notorious” ownership that shows that the seller no longer owns the property. Thorton, 164 S.W.2d at 250-51. A buyer can demonstrate ownership when he takes