Reference no: EM132093556

The plaintiffs—the Paula, Benson, Katrina, and Steven—purchased subdivision lots from Mike Lewis. The lots bordered an undevel­oped tract and offered beautiful views of a nearby lake. When Lewis and his partners began taking steps to develop the previously undeveloped tract, the plaintiffs sued. The trial court found that the plaintiffs had purchased their lots only after receiving oral assurances from Lewis that (1) the tract would remain undeveloped open space, (2) the property was owned by a company that had no plans to build on the land, (3) he held an option to pur­chase the property if it became available, and (4) he would not develop the land if it came under his ownership. Concluding that the plaintiffs had reasonably re­lied on Lewis’s oral promise, the trial court enjoined Lewis’s development of the prop­erty. Lewis appealed, arguing that the Statute of Frauds, which requires that con­tracts in­volving inter­ests in real property be in writing, barred enforcement of his oral promise.  Will the ap­pellate court affirm the trial court’s judgment? Discuss fully. Explain your answer! Must be 115 words or more.