Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Whittemore

Supreme Court of Vermont

Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Whittemore

518 A.2d 32, 147 Vt. 648, 1986 Vt. LEXIS 421

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedOctober 20, 1986

DocketNo. 85-116

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 518 A.2d 32 (Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Whittemore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Whittemore, 518 A.2d 32, 147 Vt. 648, 1986 Vt. LEXIS 421 (Vt. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s holding that, by failing to submit documentary evidence of assignment, plaintiffs failed to establish their right to foreclose on a note and mortgage originally executed by the defendants. It is well established that the Statute of Frauds is waived if parol evidence is offered without objection to prove the existence of a contract. Couture v. Lowery, 122 Vt. 239, 243, 168 A.2d 295, 298 (1961); Taplin v. Hinckley Fibre Co., 97 Vt. 184, 187, 122 A.2d 426, 427 (1923). Defendants here waived their Statute of Frauds defense by failing to object to oral testimony as to the existence of an assignment of the note and mortgage. Although the written documents were not placed in evidence, testimony introduced by plaintiffs without objection supported their contention that the note and mortgage were assigned from Home Investors Trust d/b/a Gramatan Co. to Home Investors Co. to Gramatan Home Investors Corporation. Therefore, it was error to dismiss the action for failure to establish a prima facie case.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s holding that, by failing to submit documentary evidence of assignment, plaintiffs failed to establish their right to foreclose on a note and mortgage originally executed by the defendants. It is well established that the Statute of Frauds is waived if parol evidence is offered without objection to prove the existence of a contract. Couture v. Lowery, 122 Vt. 239, 243, 168 A.2d 295, 298 (1961); Taplin v. Hinckley Fibre Co., 97 Vt. 184, 187, 122 A.2d 426, 427 (1923). Defendants here waived their Statute of Frauds defense by failing to object to oral testimony as to the existence of an assignment of the note and mortgage. Although the written documents were not placed in evidence, testimony introduced by plaintiffs without objection supported their contention that the note and mortgage were assigned from Home Investors Trust d/b/a Gramatan Co. to Home Investors Co. to Gramatan Home Investors Corporation. Therefore, it was error to dismiss the action for failure to establish a prima facie case.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 A.2d 32, 147 Vt. 648, 1986 Vt. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gramatan-home-investors-corp-v-whittemore-vt-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack