Kellum v. Browning's Administrator
1929 Ky. LEXIS 274, 231 Ky. 308, 21 S.W.2d 459 (1929)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An express contract required to overcome the presumption that services rendered between close relatives are gratuitous may be a 'contract implied in fact,' which can be proven by conduct and circumstances demonstrating a mutual intention to pay and be paid for the services.
Facts:
- In 1916, after her husband's death, Mrs. Lena Browning moved into the home of her niece, Mrs. Emma F. Kellum.
- During the entire time Mrs. Browning lived there, Mrs. Kellum operated a commercial rooming and boarding house for hire.
- Mrs. Browning was elderly, crippled, partially paralyzed, and often ill, requiring significant and menial nursing and personal care from Mrs. Kellum.
- Mrs. Browning lived with Mrs. Kellum almost continuously for nine years until her death in 1925.
- Over the nine-year period, Mrs. Browning gave Mrs. Kellum numerous checks for small, irregular amounts, with some checks bearing a notation for 'board'.
- Mrs. Browning's will included a $3,000 bequest to Mrs. Kellum but made no mention of payment for the years of care and lodging.
Procedural Posture:
- After Mrs. Browning's death, Mrs. Kellum filed a claim with the administrator of the estate for services rendered.
- The administrator and a master commissioner initially allowed the claim.
- The estate filed exceptions to the allowance of the claim.
- The case was tried before a jury on an issue out of chancery (a factual issue sent by an equity court to a jury).
- At the close of the claimant's (Mrs. Kellum's) evidence, the trial court granted a peremptory instruction, directing the jury to find for the estate.
- The trial court entered a judgment sustaining the estate's exceptions and denying Mrs. Kellum's claim.
- Mrs. Kellum, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
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 evidence showing a niece provided long-term nursing and lodging to her aunt in her commercial boarding house, and received small, irregular payments for board, suffice to overcome the presumption of gratuity and require the question of an express contract be submitted to a jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Commissioner Stanley
Yes. The evidence presented was sufficient to take the case to the jury to determine if a contract existed. The legal presumption that services between relatives are gratuitous can be overcome by proving an express contract. However, this does not require a formal, 'categorical promise.' A 'contract implied in fact,' where mutual assent is inferred from the conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances, is sufficient. Here, the facts that Mrs. Kellum ran a commercial boarding house, the demanding and menial nature of the services rendered over a long period, the distant kinship, and the partial payments made by Mrs. Browning, all combine to create a question of fact for the jury as to whether both parties intended for the services to be compensated. The trial court therefore erred in directing a verdict for the estate.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the evidentiary standard needed to overcome the presumption of gratuity in family caregiving scenarios. By distinguishing between contracts 'implied in fact' (true contracts inferred from conduct) and contracts 'implied in law' (quasi-contracts created by courts to prevent unjust enrichment), the court provides a clearer framework for future claims. It establishes that a formal, verbal agreement is not the only way to prove a compensable arrangement between relatives; a mutual understanding demonstrated through actions and context can suffice. This decision recognizes that commercial or business-like realities can exist within family relationships, allowing such claims to reach a jury rather than being dismissed as a matter of law.
