On November 7, 2025, after four days of trial, a Canyon County jury returned a verdict of over $105,000 in favor of the client of Sneed Law.    

The client was in a committed relationship with the defendant for nearly 10 years.  They purchased a house in the summer of 2014, but because the client had a significant medical lien out there (incurred due to physical abuse suffered by her ex-husband) and she was still legally married, they orally agreed the defendant would be the sole party on the mortgage, closing docs, and deed.  Thereafter, for 7 years the parties performed their duties under the oral contract, each paying their portion of the divided household expenses.  Sneed Law's client paid all utilities and purchased all groceries for the house.  Unfortunately, or perhaps because of the defendant's foresight, all expenses indicative of ownership of the house were paid for by the defendant (mortgage, taxes, insurance, etc.)   

When the client's divorce was final and the medical lien expired, she requested that defendant reform the deed to the house to reflect their agreement and memorialize her ownership interest in the house.  Each time this happened, the defendant promised he would do so and/or change the subject.  This was all based on witness testimony (no texts, emails, etc.)  Because the relationship was good, and at this point several years old, the client did not want to rock the boat and did not press the issue.

In spring of 2022, Sneed Law's client discovered that defendant was having an affair.  He admitted it when confronted.  The defendant offered the client $5,000 and a run-down car, if she and her young daughter would vacate the property within 14 days.  He wrote on the check "full and final settlement".  Fortunately, the client did not cash the check and advised the defendant that she did not think this was fair and was not in accordance with their oral agreement.  The defendant responded by threatening eviction and telling her that he had no legal obligation to her. 

Sneed Law filed suit on behalf of the client in April of 2022, alleging breach of an oral contract.   Defendant's best settlement offer over the next two years was $25,000. At trial, Sneed Law put on evidence involving lots of bank records and payments for the benefit of the house, but had to rely primarily on testimony for proof of the oral contract.  Due to the statute of frauds governing oral contracts involving real property, Sneed Law was required to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that the parties took significant and substantial steps in performance of their oral contract. 

After 4 days of evidence and testimony, the case was submitted to the jury at 4:20pm on Friday, November 7, 2025.  The jury deliberated for about three hours.  The jury found the parties had formed an oral contract with respect to the purchase and ownership of the house, there was clear/convincing evidence of significant and substantial steps the parties took to perform the contract, and that defendant breached the oral contract.  

The jury awarded Sneed Law's client damages of $105,560 (roughly one 1/3 of the equity in the house), based on their careful consideration of the parties' respective contributions to the property over 7 years.  Sneed Law spoke to one juror after the trial, who said the client was credible/believable, and they "could tell" the defendant was a "dishonest person."  In the end, that is really all that matters.