CIV § 1624

1-year rule: contracts must be in writing - CIV §1624

Covers contracts not performable within 1 year, leases over 1 year, real estate sales, loans over $100,000, and more. Must be in writing and signed.

Official text CIV § 1624 — California
  • (a) The following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party’s agent:
  • (1) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof.
  • (2) A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another, except in the cases provided for in Section 2794.
  • (3) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; such an agreement, if made by an agent of the party sought to be charged, is invalid, unless the authority of the agent is in writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged.
  • (4) An agreement authorizing or employing an agent, broker, or any other person to purchase or sell real estate, or to lease real estate for a longer period than one year, or to procure, introduce, or find a purchaser or seller of real estate or a lessee or lessor of real estate where the lease is for a longer period than one year, for compensation or a commission.
  • (5) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed during the lifetime of the promisor.
  • (6) An agreement by a purchaser of real property to pay an indebtedness secured by a mortgage or deed of trust upon the property purchased, unless assumption of the indebtedness by the purchaser is specifically provided for in the conveyance of the property.
  • (7) A contract, promise, undertaking, or commitment to loan money or to grant or extend credit, in an amount greater than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), not primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, made by a person engaged in the business of lending or arranging for the lending of money or extending credit. For purposes of this section, a contract, promise, undertaking, or commitment to loan money secured solely by residential property consisting of one to four dwelling units shall be deemed to be for personal, family, or household purposes.
  • (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a):
  • (1) An agreement or contract that is valid in other respects and is otherwise enforceable is not invalid for lack of a note, memorandum, or other writing and is enforceable by way of action or defense, provided that the agreement or contract is a qualified financial contract as defined in paragraph (2) and one of the following apply: (A) There is, as provided in paragraph (3), sufficient evidence to indicate that a contract has been made. (B) The parties thereto by means of a prior or subsequent written contract, have agreed to be bound by the terms of the qualified financial contract from the time they reached agreement (by telephone, by exchange of electronic messages, or otherwise) on those terms.
  • (2) For purposes of this subdivision, a “qualified financial contract” means an agreement as to which each party thereto is other than a natural person and that is any of the following: (A) For the purchase and sale of foreign exchange, foreign currency, bullion, coin, or precious metals on a forward, spot, next-day value or other basis. (B) A contract (other than a contract for the purchase of a commodity for future delivery on, or subject to the rules of, a contract market or board of trade) for the purchase, sale, or transfer of any commodity or any similar good, article, service, right, or interest that is presently or in the future becomes the subject of a dealing in the forward contract trade, or any product or byproduct thereof, with a maturity date more than two days after the date the contract is entered into. (C) For the purchase and sale of currency, or interbank deposits denominated in United States dollars. (D) For a currency option, currency swap, or cross-currency rate swap. (E) For a commodity swap or a commodity option (other than an option contract traded on, or subject to the rules of, a contract market or board of trade). (F) For a rate swap, basis swap, forward rate transaction, or an interest rate option. (G) For a security-index swap or option, or a security or securities price swap or option. (H) An agreement that involves any other similar transaction relating to a price or index (including, without limitation, any transaction or agreement involving any combination of the foregoing, any cap, floor, collar, or similar transaction with respect to a rate, commodity price, commodity index, security or securities price, security index, other price index, or loan price). (I) An option with respect to any of the foregoing.
  • (3) There is sufficient evidence that a contract has been made in any of the following circumstances: (A) There is evidence of an electronic communication (including, without limitation, the recording of a telephone call or the tangible written text produced by computer retrieval), admissible in evidence under the laws of this state, sufficient to indicate that in the communication a contract was made between the parties. (B) A confirmation in writing sufficient to indicate that a contract has been made between the parties and sufficient against the sender is received by the party against whom enforcement is sought no later than the fifth business day after the contract is made (or any other period of time that the parties may agree in writing) and the sender does not receive, on or before the third business day after receipt (or the other period of time that the parties may agree in writing), written objection to a material term of the confirmation. For purposes of this subparagraph, a confirmation or an objection thereto is received at the time there has been an actual receipt by an individual responsible for the transaction or, if earlier, at the time there has been constructive receipt, which is the time actual receipt by that individual would have occurred if the receiving party, as an organization, had exercised reasonable diligence. For the purposes of this subparagraph, a “business day” is a day on which both parties are open and transacting business of the kind involved in that qualified financial contract that is the subject of confirmation. (C) The party against whom enforcement is sought admits in its pleading, testimony, or otherwise in court that a contract was made. (D) There is a note, memorandum, or other writing sufficient to indicate that a contract has been made, signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by its authorized agent or broker. For purposes of this paragraph, evidence of an electronic communication indicating the making in that communication of a contract, or a confirmation, admission, note, memorandum, or writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states one or more material terms agreed upon, as long as the evidence provides a reasonable basis for concluding that a contract was made.
  • (4) For purposes of this subdivision, the tangible written text produced by telex, telefacsimile, computer retrieval, or other process by which electronic signals are transmitted by telephone or otherwise shall constitute a writing, and any symbol executed or adopted by a party with the present intention to authenticate a writing shall constitute a signing. The confirmation and notice of objection referred to in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) may be communicated by means of telex, telefacsimile, computer, or other similar process by which electronic signals are transmitted by telephone or otherwise, provided that a party claiming to have communicated in that manner shall, unless the parties have otherwise agreed in writing, have the burden of establishing actual or constructive receipt by the other party as set forth in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3).
  • (c) This section does not apply to leases subject to Division 10 (commencing with Section 10101) of the Commercial Code.
  • (d) An electronic message of an ephemeral nature that is not designed to be retained or to create a permanent record, including, but not limited to, a text message or instant message format communication, is insufficient under this title to constitute a contract to convey real property, in the absence of a written confirmation that conforms to the requirements of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b).

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 1624 is the exception § 1622 defers to. Subdivision (a) makes the listed contracts invalid unless they, or some note or memorandum of them, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or that party's agent. The requirement is a signature from the person being held to the agreement — not a formal contract, not both signatures, and not necessarily a single document.

The list has seven entries. An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year of the making. A special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another, except as provided in § 2794. An agreement for a lease longer than one year, or for the sale of real property or an interest in it — and where such an agreement is made by an agent, the agent's authority must itself be in writing subscribed by the party charged. An agreement employing an agent or broker to buy, sell or lease real estate for longer than a year, or to find a buyer, seller, lessee or lessor, for compensation or commission. An agreement not to be performed during the promisor's lifetime. An agreement by a purchaser of real property to pay a debt secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on it, unless the assumption is specifically provided for in the conveyance. And a commitment to loan money or extend credit above $100,000 not primarily for personal, family or household purposes, made by someone in the lending business — with residential one-to-four-unit lending deemed to be for personal purposes.

Subdivision (b) then carves out qualified financial contracts on defined conditions. Two things about the first entry catch people out: the test is whether the agreement by its terms cannot be performed within a year, not how long it in fact took, so an open-ended arrangement is usually outside the section. And the section says the agreement is invalid, not that it never happened — doctrines such as part performance and estoppel operate around it, which is exactly the argument to take to a lawyer.

When it applies

  • An oral promise to sell land or a house
  • A verbal agreement for a three-year lease
  • A promise to pay someone else's debt if they default
  • An estate agent claiming a commission with nothing signed
  • A two-year employment or supply arrangement agreed only in conversation
  • A buyer said to have assumed the seller's mortgage

What this section does not say

  • It does not require every contract to be in writing. Section 1622 says contracts may be oral; this section is the closed list of exceptions.
  • It does not require a formal contract. A note or memorandum subscribed by the party to be charged is enough, and it need not be signed by both sides.
  • It is not about how long performance actually took. The first entry asks whether the agreement by its terms cannot be performed within a year of the making.
  • It does not extinguish what happened. The section makes the agreement invalid, and doctrines including part performance and estoppel address the consequences of that.
  • It does not cover consumer loans. The credit entry applies to commitments above $100,000 not primarily for personal, family or household purposes, and residential one-to-four-unit lending is deemed personal.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A landowner tells a neighbour over the fence that they can buy the strip of land at the back for an agreed price, and the neighbour starts clearing it. Two months later the landowner sells the whole plot to somebody else.

How the wording applies

An agreement for the sale of real property is invalid under section 1624(a)(3) unless there is a note or memorandum subscribed by the party to be charged. The fact that decides it is whether anything in writing signed by the landowner records the deal: a text message naming the strip and the price can be enough, while a witness to the conversation is not.

How the parties settled it

The landowner reimburses the clearing costs and the neighbour makes no claim to the land, with a written first refusal if the plot is ever subdivided.

Illustrative example

A parent tells a letting agent by phone that they will cover their adult child's rent if it is ever missed. The child falls behind and the agent invoices the parent.

How the wording applies

A promise to answer for the debt of another falls within the statute of frauds, so it is invalid without a writing subscribed by the promisor. What matters is whether the parent signed anything at all: an application form with a guarantor section signed by the parent is a writing, whereas an email from the agent recording what the parent said on the phone is not subscribed by the parent.

How the parties settled it

The parent pays one month of arrears as a goodwill contribution without accepting any continuing guarantee, and either signs a written guarantee going forward or declines, with the tenancy terms adjusted accordingly.

Illustrative example

Two people agree verbally that one will work for the other for two years at a fixed annual sum. Eight months in the arrangement ends, and the worker claims the balance of the term.

How the wording applies

The first entry in subdivision (a) catches an agreement that by its terms cannot be performed within a year of its making, which a fixed two-year term cannot. It hinges on the terms and not the outturn: a rolling arrangement terminable at any time is performable within a year and outside the section, even if in fact it ran for five.

How the parties settled it

The engagement ends with a lump sum equal to an agreed number of months of notice, and both accept there is no claim for the remainder of the two years.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 1991 to 2017.

Kucker v. Kucker, 192 Cal. App. 4th 90 (2011)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether Civil Code section 1624, subdivision (a)(7), applies to the transfer of shares of stock to a trust.

What it held

Civil Code section 1624, subdivision (a)(7), does not apply to the transfer of shares of stock to a trust; it only applies to agreements to loan money or extend credit made by persons in the business of lending or extending credit.

In the court's words
Civil Code section 1624, subdivision (a)(7), cannot be construed as applying to the transfer of shares of stock to a trust.

Secrest v. Security National Mortgage Loan Trust 2002-2, 167 Cal. App. 4th 544 (2008)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether an agreement by which a lender agreed to forbear from exercising the right of foreclosure under a deed of trust securing an interest in real property comes within the statute of frauds under Civil Code section 1624.

What it held

The court held that such a forbearance agreement does come within the statute of frauds and therefore must be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged; the unexecuted January 2002 Forbearance Agreement was unenforceable.

In the court's words
We hold an agreement by which a lender agreed to forbear from exercising the right of foreclosure under a deed of trust securing an interest in real property comes within the statute of frauds.

Elias Real Estate, LLC v. Tseng, 156 Cal. App. 4th 425 (2007)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Does the statute of frauds require that a partner's authority to sell real property be in writing when the sale is not in the ordinary course of the partnership business?

What it held

Yes, the statute of frauds requires written authorization; the purchase agreement was unenforceable because the sale was not in the ordinary course of the partnership's clothing business.

In the court's words
the purchase agreement was not enforceable against the nonsignatory Tseng Brothers because it did not comport with the statute of frauds.

Ulloa v. McMillin Real Estate & Mortgage, Inc., 149 Cal. App. 4th 333 (2007)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Does the statute of frauds (Civil Code §1624) require the buyer's signature on a real estate sales contract for it to be enforceable against the seller?

What it held

The court held that under Civil Code section 1624, only the party to be charged (the defendant in the enforcement action) must sign, so the buyer's signature is not required and the source of the buyer's signature is immaterial; thus the statute of frauds did not invalidate the contract or preclude the buyer's assignee from suing for specific performance.

In the court's words
Moreover, regardless of whether Kellerup or Gogue signed the fifth counteroffer, or whether Kellerup disclosed his conduct to the Ulloas, the statute of frauds would not invalidate the contract or preclude Walton Escondido from suing them for specific performance.

Housley v. Haywood, 56 Cal. App. 4th 342 (1997)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

What did the court hold about the application of equitable estoppel to oral agreements to make a will under Civil Code § 1624?

What it held

The court held that equitable estoppel principles are available to enforce oral agreements to make a will or devise that were made prior to 1985, even if the agreement would otherwise be invalid under the statute of frauds in Civil Code § 1624(6).

In the court's words
Equitable estoppel principles are available to enforce qualifying oral agreements to make a will or devise which were made prior to 1985.

Bed, Bath & Beyond of La Jolla, Inc. v. La Jolla Village Square Venture Partners, 52 Cal. App. 4th 867 (1997)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether an agreement to lease real property for a term exceeding one year is within the statute of frauds even if it may be canceled or terminated within one year of its making.

What it held

The court held that an agreement to lease real property for a term exceeding one year is within the statute of frauds of Civil Code section 1624, subdivision (d) regardless of any provision that allows cancellation or termination within one year.

In the court's words
Therefore, we hold that an agreement to lease real property for a term exceeding one year is within the statute of frauds of Civil Code section 1624, subdivision (d) regardless whether such agreement provides that it may be canceled or terminated within one year of the date of its making and prior to commencement of the lease term.

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

The same problem elsewhere

The other legal systems in this collection answer the same everyday problem with their own provisions.

The comparison and these one-line summaries are in English.

I lent a friend money with nothing in writing: what the law says in five jurisdictions

Read the full comparison →

Related sections

CIV § 1622 Oral contracts unless statute requires writing - CIV §1622 CIV § 1625 Written contract supersedes verbal promises - CIV § 1625 CIV § 1698 Oral Modification of Written Contracts: CIV § 1698

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the California Codes.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of CIV § 1624 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in California.

← All California law pages