C v. W
480 S.W.2d 474 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Texas common law, a father's promise to support his child born out of wedlock is unenforceable for lack of consideration because the father has no pre-existing legal duty to provide such support. A moral obligation is not sufficient legal consideration to form a binding contract.
Facts:
- D.D.C. and T.W. had a child together but were never married to each other.
- D.D.C. signed an 'Agreement For Child Support,' acknowledging he was the father and promising to pay T.W. $125 per month for the child's support until the child reached age 18 or married.
- The agreement also obligated D.D.C. to pay for the child's medical expenses and maintain a life insurance policy with the child as the beneficiary.
- In the agreement, T.W. agreed that the contract would be the basis of 'all child support obligations' from D.D.C.
- D.D.C. made payments under the agreement totaling $1,375 before ceasing payments in May 1966.
- The parties also entered a separate 'Settlement Agreement' regarding matters unrelated to child support, which is not at issue in this appeal.
Procedural Posture:
- T.W., the child's mother, sued D.D.C., the father, in a Texas trial court for breach of the 'Agreement For Child Support'.
- The trial was conducted by a judge without a jury.
- The trial court found the contract enforceable and entered a judgment in favor of T.W.
- D.D.C., the father, appealed the judgment regarding the child support agreement to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Amarillo, making him the appellant and T.W. the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a father's written agreement to provide financial support for his child born out of wedlock, where he had no pre-existing statutory or common law duty of support, fail for lack of consideration and is therefore unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Ellis, Chief Justice
Yes. A father's written agreement to support his child born out of wedlock is unenforceable for lack of consideration where no pre-existing legal duty of support exists. The court reasoned that for a contract to be valid, it requires consideration, which is defined as either a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee. Here, the father (promisor) received no legal benefit because, under established Texas law, he had no legal duty to support an illegitimate child; his promise was merely to do something he was not legally bound to do. Likewise, the mother (promisee) suffered no legal detriment, as she was already legally obligated to support the child and gave up no legal right, since she had no legal claim to support from the father in the first place. The court explicitly rejected the idea that a moral obligation could serve as sufficient consideration, holding that any change to the common law rule that fathers are not obligated to support illegitimate children must come from the legislature.
Analysis:
This decision strictly applies the traditional common law rule that a father has no legal duty to support a child born outside of marriage, illustrating the formalistic application of contract consideration doctrine. It underscores that a moral obligation, however strong, does not constitute legal consideration. This case represents a legal viewpoint that has since been superseded by constitutional developments. The U.S. Supreme Court later held in cases like Gomez v. Perez (1973) that denying illegitimate children a right to parental support that is granted to legitimate children violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, making the legal foundation of this Texas case obsolete.
Unlock the full brief for C v. W