an exception to the statute of frauds applies, Crossroads could not have obtained formal legal title under its oral understanding with Heise & Heise before July 1. Crossroads suggests that the oral understanding or agreement it had with Heise & Heise is not subject to the statute of frauds. Crossroads also asserts that its actions to have the property rezoned for use as a church constituted an “improvement.” Crossroads argues that this improvement, along with the “giving of the earnest money,” is sufficient to take its oral understanding outside of the statute of frauds. We conclude that this argument lacks merit. A contract may be taken out of the statute of frauds by part performance. Gallag nts, or pay part of the purchase price. See Formanek, 271 Minn, at 63-64, 134 N.W.2d at 886 (<HOLDING>); Bouten v. Richard Miller Homes, Inc., 321
holding that where purchaser had taken possession and paid part of the purchase price the statute of frauds did not bar enforcement of a purchase agreement holding sufficient part performance of an oral trust agreement is required to remove it from the statute of frauds holding that the statute of frauds bars a breach of contract claim based on an oral agreement to enter a future employment contract that would need to meet the statute of frauds holding that buyers of real property who were in constructive possession of the property had made a down payment and had signed a contract to purchase at the time of the loss had an insurable interest in the property despite a court determination two years after the loss that the agreement to purchase was not binding recognizing cause of action where plaintiffs allege fraud in inducing not the purchase of the bonds but their retention after purchase