Some time ago one of my elderly law clients called me. A year earlier he had given his grandson a vacant lot on the Myakka River. His grandson now wanted to trade the land to a mullet fisherman for his mullet boat, so the grandson could go into the mullet fishing business.
The grandson and the fisherman verbally agreed to the trade. However, the grandfather was a retired lawyer from New York and wanted the two parties to see me to be certain their agreement was legal. I told the parties that I would need to draft a written contract, or it wouldn't be binding. When they asked why, I told them that the law allows verbal agreements (contracts) for transfer of ownership of personal property, such as the mullet boat, but it required agreements affecting the title to real property to be in writing. Since the agreement meant that ownership of personal property AND real property would be effectuated, a written contract was required.
Why do you think the law treats agreements affecting the transfer of ownership of real property differently than that of personal property? Do you think they should be treated differently? Please respond to both questions.