Fitzpatrick v. Michael
9 A.2d 639 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court of equity will not grant specific performance for an executory contract for personal services, as it is against public policy to compel the continuance of a personal and confidential relationship that has become obnoxious to one of the parties.
Facts:
- In the summer of 1936, Marie Ellen Fitzpatrick was hired by Orion C. Michael as a nurse for his wife.
- After Michael's wife died in February 1937, Michael, then 76, orally promised Fitzpatrick that if she stayed to care for him for the rest of his life, he would pay her $8 per week, provide room and board, and devise his home, its furnishings, and his cars to her in his will.
- Fitzpatrick accepted the offer and performed various personal services for Michael, including nursing, housekeeping, driving, and companionship.
- Michael executed several wills between 1937 and 1939 that were consistent with his promise to Fitzpatrick.
- In April 1939, after a trip to Florida, Michael's attitude changed, and he terminated the arrangement by forcing Fitzpatrick out of the home, cutting off utilities, and having her arrested for trespass.
Procedural Posture:
- Marie Ellen Fitzpatrick filed a bill of complaint against Orion C. Michael in a Maryland court of equity.
- Fitzpatrick sought a decree for specific performance of their oral agreement.
- Michael demurred to the bill of complaint, arguing it failed to state a claim for which equitable relief could be granted.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed Fitzpatrick's bill.
- Fitzpatrick, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decree of dismissal to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
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 court of equity have the power to grant specific performance of an oral contract for personal services where the employee has partially performed but the employer has repudiated the contract while both parties are still living?
Opinions:
Majority - Offutt, J.
No. A court of equity will not specifically enforce an executory contract for personal services. The primary reasons for this rule are twofold: first, the enforcement of such a contract would compel a continued personal relationship that has become unwanted by one party, which is contrary to the best interests of society. Second, courts lack the practical means and ability to supervise and enforce such decrees effectively. While equity may provide relief for fully performed contracts where the value of services is incalculable (typically after the promisor's death), it will not intervene when the contract is still executory and both parties are living. The services Fitzpatrick provided, while varied, were not of such an extraordinary or unique character as to justify a deviation from this well-established rule. Therefore, specific performance is an inappropriate remedy.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the traditional equity rule against ordering specific performance for personal services contracts. It clearly distinguishes between an executory contract (where performance is ongoing) and an executed contract (where performance is complete), holding that the remedy is only potentially available in the latter scenario, typically after the promisor's death. The decision underscores the significant public policy concern of not forcing individuals into involuntary, close personal relationships, even when a clear breach of contract has occurred. It solidifies the principle that the appropriate remedy for breach of a personal service contract is damages at law, not an equitable decree forcing performance.
