Fiege v. Boehm

Court of Appeals of Maryland
210 Md. 352, 123 A.2d 316 (1956)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Forbearance to assert a legal claim constitutes sufficient consideration for a contract if the claim is made in good faith and is founded upon a reasonable basis, regardless of the claim's ultimate legal validity.

Facts:

In early 1951, Hilda Louise Boehm and Louis Gail Fiege engaged in sexual intercourse.
Boehm became pregnant and informed Fiege that she believed he was the father.
Before the child's birth, Fiege orally agreed to pay Boehm's medical expenses and provide weekly child support.
In exchange for Fiege's promise, Boehm agreed to forbear from instituting legal bastardy proceedings against him.
Boehm gave birth to a child on September 29, 1951.
Fiege made payments totaling $480 between September 1951 and May 1953.
In May 1953, Fiege stopped making payments after obtaining blood tests which indicated he could not be the child's father.

Procedural Posture:

Hilda Louise Boehm sued Louis Gail Fiege for breach of contract in the Superior Court of Baltimore City, a trial court.
Fiege's initial demurrer to the complaint was sustained by the trial court.
Boehm filed an amended declaration, to which the trial court overruled Fiege's demurrer.
Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Boehm for $2,415.80.
The trial court denied Fiege's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (n.o.v.) or a new trial and entered judgment on the jury's verdict.
Fiege, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the state's highest court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is an agreement to pay for a child's support, made in exchange for forbearance from initiating bastardy proceedings, enforceable even if scientific evidence later proves the promisor could not have been the father?

Opinions:

Majority - Delaplaine, J.

Yes, an agreement to pay for a child's support in exchange for forbearance from initiating bastardy proceedings is enforceable. The court held that forbearance to assert a legal claim is sufficient consideration if the claimant has an honest and reasonable belief in the possible validity of the claim. The validity of the underlying contract does not depend on whether the defendant was actually the father, but on whether the plaintiff made the claim in good faith at the time the agreement was formed. The court adopted a test that combines a subjective requirement that the claim be bona fide with an objective requirement that it have a reasonable basis of support. Because there was no proof of fraud and the evidence suggested Boehm made her claim in good faith, her forbearance was valuable consideration, making Fiege's promise to pay an enforceable contract.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the modern contract law principle that the validity of forbearance as consideration rests on the claimant's good faith and the reasonableness of the claim, not its ultimate success. It moves away from the older common law rule that required a forborne claim to be legally valid to constitute good consideration. By doing so, the court promotes the public policy of encouraging private settlements and compromises of disputes. Future litigants can be more confident that their settlement agreements will be enforced, provided the underlying claims were not frivolous, vexatious, or asserted in bad faith.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Fiege v. Boehm (1956)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"