|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED MARCH 5, 1996 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-1656
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
MARJORIE METZLER,
a/k/a MARJORIE H.
METZLER,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DEANO U. JOHNSON
and PENNIE J. JOHNSON,
Defendants-Appellants,
USA FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC.,
n/k/a AVCO FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
APPEAL from a judgment and
an order of the circuit court for Oconto County: LARRY L. JESKE, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Cane, P.J.,
LaRocque and Myse, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Deano and Pennie Johnson appeal a summary judgment
that granted Marjorie Metzler strict foreclosure of a three-year land
contract. Under the land contract, the
Johnsons agreed to make $219.65 monthly payments at 10.5% interest for three
years on a $22,000 balance, with the unpaid balance due at the end of the third
year. When the Johnsons were unable to
make the balloon payment, Metzler permitted them to make larger monthly
payments for several months.
Eventually, after the Johnsons showed no prospects of paying the balloon
payment, Metzler stopped the arrangement and commenced the strict foreclosure
proceeding.
On appeal, the Johnsons
argue that Metzler agreed to extend their land contract for an unlimited
period. They cite payment receipts
Metzler issued and letters from her lawyer.
The trial court concluded that the Johnsons were alleging an oral
modification of the land contract in violation of the statute of frauds. The trial court correctly granted summary
judgment if Metzler showed a lack of material factual disputes and the right to
judgment as a matter of law. Powalka
v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., 53 Wis.2d 513, 518, 192 N.W.2d 852, 854
(1972). We reject the Johnsons'
arguments and therefore affirm the summary judgment.
Nothing in the parties'
writings created a sufficient agreement under the statute of frauds to extend
the term of their land contract for an unlimited period. Writings will not satisfy the statute of
frauds unless they are definite as to the parties' intent. See Asplund v. Fisher,
19 Wis.2d 450, 453, 120 N.W.2d 724, 726 (1963); Stuesser v. Ebel,
19 Wis.2d 591, 593, 120 N.W.2d 679, 681 (1963); Thiel v. Jahns,
252 Wis. 27, 30, 30 N.W.2d 189, 191 (1947).
In support of their contention, the Johnsons have provided letters
Metzler's lawyer wrote them regarding property taxes and payment receipts
Metzler issued acknowledging the increased payments the Johnsons made after the
land contract's expiration date. Such
letters and receipts are insufficient under the statute of frauds to extend the
term of a land contract for an unlimited period.
Rather, the statute of
frauds requires a degree of definiteness that Metzler's receipts and her
lawyer's letters did not possess. It
compels the parties' writings to provide for the land contract modification
with certainty and clarity. It does not
sanction modification by implication.
In order to extend the expired land contract for an unlimited period,
the Johnsons needed writings that eliminated doubts as to the parties'
intent. They may not rely on the
implications they see in writings that have other possible explanations. Here, Metzler's receipts, together with her
lawyer's letters, were consistent with other scenarios besides the land
contract's extension, such as a decision by Metzler to grant the Johnsons
temporary forbearance by permitting what amounted to an informal redemption period
before she commenced strict foreclosure proceedings. In sum, the trial court correctly granted Metzler summary
judgment.[1]
By the Court.—Judgment
and order affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.