Berg v. Ting

The Bergs (plaintiffs) withdrew their opposition to a subdivision plat application by the Cahills and the Youngs in exchange for a recorded easement over the Cahills' land, but the easement's location was tied to a plat description that did not exist until the plat was approved nearly four years later in a substantially reconfigured form, so the recorded grant no longer accurately described the actual easement area. The Tings (defendants) later bought the Cahills' land without any mention of the Bergs' easement in their deed and refused to recognize it; the Bergs sued to quiet title, and while the courts agreed the grant failed the statute of frauds due to its inadequate description, the Court of Appeals found it enforceable anyway under the doctrine of part performance.