Purchase & Sale  ·  September 30, 2026

You Said Yes by Text. You May Not Have a Deal.

The counteroffer came in by text at 9:40 at night. The buyer replied "Deal — send the paperwork." The next morning the seller took a higher offer that arrived by email with a signed purchase agreement attached. The first buyer has screenshots, a timeline and a very clear sense of having been wronged. Whether the buyer has a contract is a different question.

Many California deals now happen in text threads, email chains and e-signature platforms. But California's statute of frauds still requires a signed writing for a sale of real property, a lease of more than one year, and an agreement employing a broker to buy, sell or lease (for more than one year) real estate, or to find a buyer, seller or long-term tenant, for compensation or a commission. This article explains when an email, a text or a DocuSign envelope satisfies that requirement, when it does not, and what buyers, sellers and brokers can do about it. It is current as of September 30, 2026.

What real estate agreements must be in writing in California?

The statute of frauds is Civil Code section 1624. Subdivision (a) lists contracts that "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." Three categories matter in real estate:

• Sales and long leases — section 1624(a)(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." This reaches purchase agreements, options and the sale of an interest such as an easement.
• Broker employment — section 1624(a)(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."
• Loan assumptions — section 1624(a)(6): a purchaser's agreement to pay debt secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on the property, unless the assumption is specifically provided for in the conveyance.

Two companion statutes point the same way. Civil Code section 1091 provides that an estate in real property, other than an estate at will or for a term not exceeding one year, "can be transferred only by operation of law, or by an instrument in writing, subscribed by the party disposing of the same, or by his agent thereunto authorized by writing." Code of Civil Procedure section 1971 says much the same about creating, granting, assigning or surrendering any interest in real property.

The "party to be charged" and the agent's authority

Two details matter most in these cases. First, the writing must be signed by the party to be charged — the person the contract is being enforced against. A buyer's signed offer does not bind a seller who never signed anything. Second, when an agent signs, the agent's authority must itself be in writing. Section 1624(a)(3) says a real property agreement made by an agent "is invalid, unless the authority of the agent is in writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged," and Civil Code section 2309 states the general rule: "an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing." That matters when a spouse, a property manager or a single LLC member signs on behalf of someone else, and it is one reason every co-owner — and every required co-trustee — should sign.

Changes to the deal count too

"An agreement to modify a contract that is subject to the statute of frauds is also subject to the statute of frauds" (Secrest v. Security National Mortgage Loan Trust 2002-2 (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 544). In Secrest, a forbearance agreement modifying a note and deed of trust that the lender never signed was unenforceable against the lender. A price reduction agreed by text, a closing extension agreed on a phone call, or an email promising to waive a contingency can raise the same problem. Civil Code section 1698 preserves some exceptions — an oral modification is effective to the extent it has actually been carried out, and waiver and estoppel remain available in an appropriate case — but relying on them can mean litigating.

Is a text message enough to buy or sell property in California?

On its own, no. California addresses texts directly in its statute of frauds. Civil Code section 1624(d), added by Assembly Bill 2136 (Stats. 2014, ch. 107) effective January 1, 2015, provides:

"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)."

The cross-referenced provision, section 1624(b)(3)(B), describes a confirmation "in writing sufficient to indicate that a contract has been made between the parties and sufficient against the sender" that is received by the party against whom enforcement is sought no later than the fifth business day after the contract is made, where the sender does not receive, on or before the third business day after receipt, a written objection to a material term of the confirmation. The parties may agree in writing to different periods.

Three observations follow. First, a proper written confirmation — received by the other side within five business days and not objected to within three business days after receipt — removes the bar in section 1624(d). But subdivision (d) is written in the negative: it says a text is insufficient without the confirmation, not that a text plus a confirmation always satisfies the signed-writing requirement of subdivision (a). Treat a confirmation as a stopgap, not a substitute for a signed contract. Second, the deadlines are counted in business days. Third, section 1624(d) speaks of a "contract to convey real property." As of September 30, 2026, we have not found a published California decision deciding whether it reaches a lease or a broker's commission agreement, so no one should assume a text thread is safe for those, either. The same bill amended Business and Professions Code section 10148 so that brokers are not required to retain ephemeral electronic messages of this kind.

Can an email create a binding real estate contract in California?

It can, but not always.

California's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), Civil Code section 1633.1 and following, provides that "[i]f a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law," and "[i]f a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law" (Civil Code section 1633.7). A record or signature "may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form." UETA has no general exclusion for real estate sales or leases.

But UETA comes with two gates.

1. The parties must have agreed to transact electronically. Section 1633.5(b) provides that the Act "applies only to a transaction between parties each of which has agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means," and that whether they agreed "is determined from the context and surrounding circumstances, including the parties' conduct." California's version adds a limit: except for a separate and optional agreement whose primary purpose is to authorize electronic transactions, consent to transact electronically "may not be contained in a standard form contract that is not an electronic record."
2. The signer must have intended to sign. Section 1633.2(h) defines an electronic signature as "an electronic sound, symbol, or process attached to or logically associated with an electronic record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the electronic record."

J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair shows how those gates work. Counsel emailed a settlement proposal asking for a "YES or NO." The defendant replied by email, "So I agree," and typed his name at the end. The trial court enforced the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6; the Court of Appeal reversed. It found "the record is devoid of any evidence demonstrating that Fair intended to execute a settlement agreement by electronic means when he printed his name at the end of his e-mail," and held that "a printed name is not a signature under contract law simply because the person deliberately printed his or her name." The parties had agreed to negotiate by email, but the plaintiffs had not shown that they agreed to conduct the transaction by electronic means or that the defendant intended his printed name as an electronic signature.

The story did not end there. In a later published appeal in the same case (J.B.B. Investment Partners, Ltd. v. Fair (1st Dist., June 4, 2019, No. A152877)), the court held that the same email exchange did form a binding settlement, enforceable in an ordinary breach-of-contract action, explaining that its 2014 opinion "solely addressed the question of enforceability under section 664.6." The court also held the real property statute of frauds "plainly inapplicable," agreeing with the plaintiffs that the deal was "a settlement agreement, not a real property transaction." So J.B.B. is about whether a typed name is a signature — the same kind of question the real property statute of frauds raises — not about whether an email exchange can ever form a contract. It is a published California appellate decision on that signature question, and the Judicial Council's civil jury instruction on agreements formalized electronically (CACI No. 380) cites it.

Can an email chain be the "memorandum"?

The statute of frauds does not require a single formal contract. It requires "some note or memorandum" signed by the party to be charged. The Supreme Court explained in Sterling v. Taylor (2007) 40 Cal.4th 757 that a memorandum suffices if it "identifies the subject of the parties' agreement, shows that they made a contract, and states the essential contract terms with reasonable certainty," and that more than one writing may be considered together. Where an essential term is unclear, extrinsic evidence may clarify it — but it cannot supply a term that is missing.

Sterling is also a warning. It involved three Santa Monica apartment buildings and a handwritten memorandum giving the price as a multiple of gross income with an approximate figure. The buyer's claimed price of $14,404,841 could not "reasonably be considered an approximation of $16,750,000," so the price term was not established with reasonable certainty, and the seller prevailed. An email chain that leaves price, property, or the parties' intent to be bound fuzzy is exposed to the same result.

As of September 30, 2026, we have not found a published California appellate decision holding that an email chain did, or did not, satisfy the statute of frauds for a purchase or lease of real property. Decisions from other states are not binding here. Until a California court decides it, an email is more likely to be treated as a signed writing when it looks like a signed agreement and the parties plainly treated it as one, and less likely when it looks like a conversation. Neither side should assume either result.

Is a DocuSign signature on a real estate contract binding in California?

Generally yes — if the parties agreed to transact electronically, the signer intended to sign, and the signature can be tied to the person. Under section 1633.9(a), an electronic signature "is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person," and that "may be shown in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of any security procedure applied to determine the person to which the electronic record or electronic signature was attributable."

The disputes arise when someone says, "I never signed that." California's appellate decisions on that question come from motions to compel arbitration, not real estate cases, but the lessons carry over:

• In Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836, an employer failed to prove an electronic signature was the employee's act because its witness did not explain how the signature, or the date and time next to it, came to be placed on the document.
• In Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047, a declaration describing the unique username and password, the steps required to sign, and the date, time and IP address stamps was enough.
• In Fabian v. Renovate America, Inc. (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1062, a DocuSign signature on a home-improvement financing contract was not authenticated where the company offered no evidence of who sent the document or how, of DocuSign's identity verification process, or of what the audit codes meant.

The common thread is the audit trail. A signature platform's certificate of completion, identity verification records and email delivery logs are what make an e-signature provable. Keep them with the transaction file.

Standard forms reflect the same reality. The versions of the California Association of REALTORS (C.A.R.) residential purchase agreement we reviewed (the 12/18 and 12/21 revisions) define "Signed" to include an electronic signature and allow the agreement to be signed in counterparts; check the current revision you are actually using. And UETA's exclusion for provisions that must be separately signed or initialed expressly does not apply to the liquidated damages clause in a real property purchase contract (Civil Code sections 1677 and 1678) or the real property arbitration clause (Code of Civil Procedure section 1298) (Civil Code section 1633.3(b)(4)). So, if the parties have agreed to transact electronically, those initials may be electronic. Other separately initialed disclosures may not qualify.

Can an oral real estate agreement be enforced in California?

The statute of frauds is a defense, and California recognizes limited ways around it. Both are narrow.

Part performance

Code of Civil Procedure section 1972(a) provides that the companion writing requirement in section 1971 does not abridge "the power of any court to compel the specific performance of an agreement, in case of part performance thereof." California courts apply the doctrine to an oral agreement for the transfer of an interest in real property when "the buyer has taken possession of the property and either makes a full or partial payment of the purchase price, or makes valuable and substantial improvements on the property, in reliance on the oral agreement" (Sutton v. Warner (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 415). The conduct must also clearly relate to, and be pursuant to, the terms of the oral agreement. In Sutton, tenants who had agreed to buy the house they were renting made a $15,000 down payment, paid the sellers an amount equal to the monthly mortgage payment, reimbursed the property taxes and made improvements; the trial court's award of specific performance was affirmed.

Paying money alone is not enough. "The payment of money is not 'sufficient part performance to take an oral agreement out of the statute of frauds,'" because the payor has an adequate remedy at law (Secrest). A buyer who texted "deal," wired an earnest money deposit and did nothing else is not in the Sutton position.

Estoppel

The Supreme Court held in Monarco v. Lo Greco (1950) 35 Cal.2d 621 that a party may be estopped from relying on the statute of frauds where enforcing it would cause "unconscionable injury" to someone "induced by the other seriously to change his position in reliance on the contract," or "unjust enrichment" to a party who received the benefits of the other's performance. It is an equitable doctrine, reserved for serious reliance, and it has a significant exception for brokers, discussed next.

Where an enforceable sale contract does exist, the buyer's remedy is often specific performance, backed by a lis pendens — covered in our article on what to do when a California seller backs out.

Does a real estate broker need a written agreement to collect a commission in California?

For brokers, the statute of frauds is not a technicality. It decides whether a commission is collectible at all.

The Supreme Court held in Phillippe v. Shapell Industries, Inc. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1247 that "a licensed real estate broker or salesperson cannot assert equitable estoppel against a statute of frauds defense to an oral commission agreement ... unless there is a showing of actual fraud by the party to be charged." Licensed brokers are presumed to know the writing requirement, and the exception is narrow: the court held that a broker's reliance "on an oral promise to pay a commission or an oral promise to execute the required writing at a later date" cannot be reasonable enough to support a fraud claim. In Phillippe, a broker with an oral 6% commission agreement who located a property the developer bought for $2.7 million recovered nothing.

What counts as a sufficient writing? The memorandum must "unequivocally show on its face the fact of employment of the broker" and be signed by the principal or its agent (Phillippe; Westside Estate Agency, Inc. v. Randall (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 317). A writing that does not show the broker's employment, or that only the broker signed, will not do. In Franklin v. Hansen (1963) 59 Cal.2d 570, a seller's telegram offering to sell for $100,000 cash failed because it did not use any words recognizing an obligation to pay a commission. In Beazell v. Schrader (1963) 59 Cal.2d 577, the Supreme Court recognized that signed escrow instructions can satisfy the statute where sufficient in content, and that a memorandum need not state the commission amount or an express promise to pay if it shows the employment relationship — but the broker could not recover the $10,000 he claimed. The escrow instructions he relied on provided for a $2,500 commission, which the court noted he was undisputedly entitled to, and he could not use oral evidence to contradict them; the dismissal of his superior court action was affirmed.

Westside Estate Agency is the modern illustration. A broker orally agreed to represent buyers looking for a home in Los Angeles and identified a $65 million Bel Air estate; the buyers later bought it for $46.25 million through another broker. The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of the first broker's claims, holding that once the statute of frauds applies, "its bar against relief is absolute and applies no matter how the unhappy broker styles his or her claim to recover compensation or a commission."

Signatures by one owner can raise their own issues. In Jacobs v. Locatelli (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 317, a listing agreement signed by only one of several co-owners, acting as trustee, survived a demurrer because extrinsic evidence could show the signer acted as agent for the others — a question of fact, not a guaranteed result.

Checklist: making an electronic real estate agreement enforceable in California

1. Say it out loud, in writing. If the parties intend to transact electronically, say so in the email or e-signature transmittal, or in a separate written consent. California's UETA does not let that consent be buried in a paper standard-form contract unless it is a separate, optional agreement whose primary purpose is to authorize electronic transactions. A clear statement makes consent much easier to prove.
2. Sign on a platform, not in a thread. Use an e-signature service that produces an audit trail, and keep the certificate of completion.
3. Never treat a text as the deal. If an agreement is reached by text, make sure a written confirmation meeting section 1624(b)(3)(B) is received by the other party no later than the fifth business day after the deal is made. Better still, get a signed contract.
4. Check who is signing and on what authority. Confirm that every owner, and every required co-trustee, signs, and that anyone signing for someone else — a spouse, a property manager, an LLC member or manager — has written authority where the law requires it.
5. Put every change in writing. Extensions, price changes, credits and contingency waivers modify a contract that is itself subject to the statute of frauds.
6. Brokers: get the signed agreement first. A signed listing agreement or buyer representation agreement that shows the fact of employment, before the work starts, is the most reliable protection for a commission.

If a deal fell apart after a text, an email or an unsigned e-signature envelope, the facts — who said what, in which medium, and what each side did next — decide the outcome. Our purchase and sale disputes and contract disputes pages describe how we handle these matters, and our guide to California real estate litigation deadlines covers the time limits that apply.

Common questions

This article is general information about California law as of September 30, 2026 and is not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Statutes and case law change, and how they apply depends on the specific facts. Anyone facing a specific dispute should consult a lawyer about their own circumstances.

Related reading: our article on what to do when a California seller backs out and our reference on California real estate litigation deadlines.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.