Green v. Richmond
369 Mass. 47, 1975 Mass. LEXIS 777, 337 N.E.2d 691 (1975)
Rule of Law:
An oral promise to make a will in exchange for services, though unenforceable as a contract under the Statute of Frauds, allows for recovery in quantum meruit for the fair value of services rendered, provided the underlying agreement is not illegal as a matter of law; the gross value of the promised estate is admissible evidence of the services' value, but a probate inventory listing only gross assets is not sufficient proof without a preliminary showing of reliability.
Facts:
- In November 1962, the plaintiff met Maxwell Evans Richmond (the decedent) and shortly thereafter accepted his proposal of marriage.
- In October 1963, the decedent stated he had a “mental hangup” about marriage, asked to be released from the engagement, and orally promised to bequeath his entire estate to the plaintiff at his death if she would agree to “stay” with him.
- The plaintiff agreed to the decedent's proposal, foregoing marital security.
- For eight years, between October 1963 and October 1971, the plaintiff provided numerous social, domestic, and business services for the decedent and engaged in sexual intercourse with him.
- During this period, the decedent made several statements to the plaintiff and others acknowledging the agreement, with the last affirmation occurring about three months before his death.
- The plaintiff maintained her own apartment and paid her own household bills, received no expensive gifts from the decedent, and the decedent traveled with other women when the plaintiff could not accompany him on vacations, suggesting the sexual aspect of their relationship was not a central part of their agreement.
- The decedent died in October 1971, and the inventory value of his estate was approximately $7,232,000.
- The decedent never made a will bequeathing his estate to the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant, as the personal representative of Maxwell Evans Richmond’s estate, in Superior Court, seeking recovery for services rendered in quantum meruit.
- A jury trial in the Superior Court resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $1,350,000.
- The Superior Court denied the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict and motion for a new trial.
- The defendant appealed the judgment, including the denial of his motions and the admission of certain evidence.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted a request for direct appellate review.
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 oral promise to bequeath an entire estate in exchange for services unenforceable as an illegal contract when there is evidence of sexual relations between the parties, and is a probate inventory listing only gross assets admissible evidence of the reasonable value of services in a quantum meruit claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Hennessey, J.
No, an oral promise to bequeath an entire estate in exchange for services is not unenforceable as an illegal contract as a matter of law solely because sexual relations occurred, if there is disputed evidence from which a jury could find that the illicit relations were no part of the contract and merely incidental to the performance. Furthermore, while the value of a promised legacy is admissible as evidence of the value of services in a quantum meruit claim, a probate inventory listing only gross assets, without accounting for debts and taxes, is not an appropriate form of proof without a preliminary showing of its reliability, due to its potential for unfair prejudice. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict regarding contract illegality. Although an oral agreement to make a will is generally not binding under G. L. c. 259, § 5, a plaintiff may recover the fair value of services in quantum meruit if the agreement is legal and not contrary to public policy. The defendant argued the contract was illegal because it implicitly or explicitly included sexual intercourse, violating public policy. However, the court found that the evidence was not uncontroverted regarding whether sexual intercourse was an inherent term of the agreement or a serious, non-incidental part of its performance. The plaintiff's testimony about the contract terms did not mention sexual intercourse, and other evidence (e.g., plaintiff maintaining her own finances, decedent traveling with other women) allowed the jury to infer that the sexual relations were incidental, not contractual. Thus, the issue of illegality was properly submitted to the jury as a question of fact. On the issue of damages, the court held that evidence of the value of the promised estate is admissible in a quantum meruit action as an admission of what the decedent considered the services worth, citing precedents like Downey v. Union Trust Co. and Turner v. White. This aligns with scholarly authority supporting the admissibility of contract price as evidence of reasonable value, even for unenforceable contracts. However, the court found it was error to admit the probate inventory itself as proof of the estate's value. The inventory showed only gross assets and did not account for taxes, debts, or other charges, leading to a substantial overstatement of net value and creating a high potential for unfair prejudice. In such extraordinary circumstances, particularly with a large sum involved, a preliminary inquiry into the inventory's reliability and accuracy was required before its disclosure to the jury to ensure it fairly reflected the situation and was sufficiently verified. Since this was not done, the admission of the inventory was deemed prejudicial error affecting only the damages, warranting a new trial limited to that issue.
Analysis:
This case clarifies two significant aspects of quantum meruit claims arising from unenforceable oral contracts to make a will. First, it reinforces that the mere presence of sexual relations between parties does not automatically render such an agreement illegal as a matter of law; rather, it becomes a question for the jury if evidence suggests the sexual aspect was incidental to the bargained-for services. Second, it affirms the principle that the promised value of a legacy is admissible evidence for determining the fair value of services in quantum meruit, but sets a crucial evidentiary standard: when the evidence of value (like a probate inventory) is potentially misleading or highly prejudicial, a preliminary judicial inquiry into its reliability and accuracy is required to prevent unfair impact on the jury. This ruling guides courts in balancing the probative value of evidence against its prejudicial effect, particularly in complex estate cases.
