Monarco v. Lo Greco
35 Cal.2d 621, 1950 Cal. LEXIS 370, 220 P.2d 737 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party is estopped from asserting the statute of frauds as a defense to an oral contract when the promisee has been induced to seriously change their position in reliance on the contract, causing unconscionable injury, or when the promisor has been unjustly enriched by receiving the benefits of the other's performance.
Facts:
- Natale and Carmela Castiglia, a married couple, owned agricultural property.
- In 1926, they orally promised Carmela's 18-year-old son, Christie, that if he stayed home and worked in the family venture instead of leaving to seek an independent life, they would keep their property in joint tenancy so the survivor could will it all to him.
- In reliance on this promise, Christie remained home for over 20 years, working diligently in the family venture for only room, board, and spending money, forgoing opportunities for education or to accumulate his own property.
- The family venture became highly successful, with Natale and Carmela's interest growing to be worth approximately $100,000.
- In 1941, Natale and Carmela executed mutual wills consistent with their oral agreement, leaving almost all their property to Christie.
- Shortly before his death, Natale became dissatisfied with the agreement and, without informing Christie or Carmela, terminated the joint tenancies.
- Natale then executed a new will leaving all of his property to his grandson, Carmen Monarco.
Procedural Posture:
- Natale's will was probated, and a decree of distribution was entered distributing his property to his grandson, Carmen Monarco (plaintiff).
- After the decree became final, Monarco filed suit in the trial court against Carmela Castiglia and others for partition of the properties and an accounting.
- Carmela filed a cross-complaint asking the court to declare Monarco a constructive trustee of the property because Natale had breached the oral agreement with Christie.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendants and cross-complainant, Carmela.
- The plaintiff, Carmen Monarco, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
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 a party estopped from asserting the statute of frauds to prevent enforcement of an oral contract to make a will when another party has detrimentally relied on the contract for decades and the promisor has been unjustly enriched by that reliance?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, J.
Yes. A party is estopped from relying on the statute of frauds where enforcing the statute would result in fraud, which can occur in two primary ways: (1) causing unconscionable injury to a party who has seriously changed their position in reliance on the oral contract, or (2) allowing unjust enrichment of a party who has received the benefits of the other's performance. In this case, both elements are present. Christie suffered unconscionable injury by forgoing 20 years of opportunities to build his own life and wealth in reliance on the promise. Simultaneously, Natale was unjustly enriched by accepting the benefits of Christie's decades of labor that made the family venture a success. The court rejected the argument that estoppel requires a specific representation that a writing is not necessary; the promise that the contract will be performed is what induces reliance and triggers estoppel to prevent injustice.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in California contract law, solidifying the doctrine of estoppel as a powerful equitable exception to the statute of frauds. It clarifies that estoppel can be based on either unconscionable injury or unjust enrichment, broadening its application beyond cases where there was a specific misrepresentation about the writing requirement itself. This precedent makes it more difficult for a party to use the statute of frauds as a shield to escape an oral obligation after inducing substantial, life-altering reliance from the other party, particularly in the context of family relationships and promises to make a will.
Unlock the full brief for Monarco v. Lo Greco