Dementas v. Estate of Tallas Ex Rel. First Security Bank
764 p.2d 628, 1988 Utah App. LEXIS 174, 95 Utah Adv. Rep. 28 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A promise to pay for services previously rendered gratuitously is unenforceable for lack of consideration, as past consideration is not valid legal consideration.
Facts:
- Jack Tallas was a successful businessman and Peter Dementas was his close personal friend.
- For a period of fourteen years, Dementas rendered assistance to Tallas, including driving him, picking up his mail, and helping manage his rental properties.
- On December 18, 1982, Tallas dictated a memorandum to Dementas acknowledging the assistance.
- The memorandum stated that Tallas owed Dementas $50,000 for these past services and that he would change his will to make Dementas an heir for that amount.
- Tallas retyped the memorandum in English, notarized it, and delivered it to Dementas three days later.
- Tallas died on February 4, 1983, without having changed his will to include the $50,000 provision for Dementas.
Procedural Posture:
- Peter Dementas filed a claim for $50,000 with the Estate of Jack Tallas.
- The personal representative for the estate denied the claim.
- Dementas then filed a lawsuit against the estate in the state trial court to recover the $50,000.
- The trial court found that the services Dementas provided were performed gratuitously and that the memorandum from Tallas was not an enforceable contract for lack of consideration.
- The trial court dismissed Dementas's claim, entering a judgment in favor of the Estate.
- Dementas (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Utah Court of Appeals, where the Estate is 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 past consideration, where services were rendered gratuitously without the expectation of payment, constitute valid legal consideration to support a subsequent promise to pay?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Orme
No, a promise to pay for past services that were rendered gratuitously is not supported by valid consideration and is therefore unenforceable. To form a valid contract, consideration must be bargained for and exchanged for the promise. Events that occurred prior to the making of a promise, and not for the purpose of inducing that promise, are considered 'past consideration,' which is the legal equivalent of no consideration. The court found that Dementas's services were performed gratuitously, without any expectation of compensation. Therefore, Tallas's subsequent promise to pay $50,000 was not part of a bargained-for exchange. The court also rejected the 'moral obligation' theory as an exception not embraced in Utah, and further noted it would not apply anyway since the services were found to be gratuitous. Similarly, the 'account stated' claim fails because it requires a pre-existing valid debt, which was absent here due to the lack of consideration.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the traditional common law doctrine that past consideration is not legally sufficient consideration to form an enforceable contract. The decision underscores the critical importance of a 'bargained-for exchange' in contract law, distinguishing legally binding promises from gratuitous promises made out of moral obligation or appreciation for past kindness. By refusing to enforce a written, notarized promise, the court signals that formalities cannot cure a fundamental lack of consideration. This holding solidifies a strict interpretation of contract formation and may lead to what some consider unfair results, but it maintains a clear doctrinal line between gifts and contracts.
