- -22
We find that, under North Dakota law, petitioner effectively
transferred his interest in the Third Street property in December
1985. The requirements for a valid transfer were met by the
purchase agreement, including capable parties, consent to the
transaction, a lawful object, and adequate consideration. We
find that the purchase agreement evidenced an intent of a present
transfer of petitioner's interest in the partnership property
including the Third Street property from petitioner to the three
other partners of the law partnership. We reject respondent's
argument that the statute of frauds was violated, since the
purchase agreement met the statute's requirements under North
Dakota law.2 Therefore, petitioner did not have income from the
sale of the Third Street property in 1987. However, petitioner
is not entitled to deduct the loss of $2,490 he claimed on the
Third Street property in computing his income for 1987.
2 Under the North Dakota statute of frauds provision, any
agreement for the sale of real estate must be in writing. N.D.
Cent. Code sec. 9-06-04 (1993). Further, the instrument must be
subscribed by the party disposing of the property. N.D. Cent.
Code sec. 9-06-04 (1993). The instrument must also indicate the
seller, the buyer, the price, and the time of payment, and
contain an adequate description of the property. Heinzeroth v.
Bentz, 116 N.W.2d 611, 615-616 (N.D. 1962); Syrup v. Pitcher, 73
N.W.2d 140, 144 (N.D. 1955).
Based on the purchase agreement, we find that the statute of
frauds was satisfied. See our discussion of a valid contract for
deed supra.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011