O'KEEFFE v. Bry
456 F. Supp. 822, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16123 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the New York Statute of Frauds, multiple documents may be combined to satisfy the writing requirement only if there is one core document, signed by the party to be charged, that establishes the basic contractual commitment. Quantum meruit is unavailable for services covered by an express contract unless the additional services are so distinct from the contractual duties that it would be unreasonable to assume they were rendered without expectation of extra pay.
Facts:
- For many years, artist Georgia O’Keeffe employed Doris Bry as her commissioned sales agent for her artwork and that of her late husband, Alfred Stieglitz.
- O'Keeffe and Bry had a falling out, leading O'Keeffe to terminate the agency relationship.
- O'Keeffe demanded that Bry return all works of art belonging to O'Keeffe and Stieglitz that were in Bry's possession.
- Bry refused to return the artwork.
- Bry alleged that O’Keeffe had made several oral promises to her, including an agreement for lifetime employment as O'Keeffe's exclusive agent, a promise to create a trust to provide Bry with an annual income, and a promise to name Bry as the executor of her estate.
Procedural Posture:
- Georgia O’Keeffe filed a lawsuit against Doris Bry in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking the return of her artwork (replevin) and an accounting.
- O'Keeffe's motion for a preliminary injunction to secure the artwork was granted by the court.
- Bry filed an amended answer which included five counterclaims against O'Keeffe for breach of contract and recovery in quantum meruit.
- O'Keeffe moved to dismiss Bry's counterclaims, arguing they were barred by the Statute of Frauds.
- The court initially denied the motion without prejudice, allowing for limited discovery, including depositions and an in camera inspection of O'Keeffe's wills and trusts.
- Following discovery, O'Keeffe renewed her motion to dismiss the counterclaims, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.
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 the New York Statute of Frauds bar counterclaims based on alleged oral agreements for lifetime employment and testamentary provisions where the party asserting the claims cannot produce a single writing establishing the core contractual commitment?
Opinions:
Majority - Lasker, District Judge
Yes, the New York Statute of Frauds bars the counterclaims because Bry failed to produce a writing, or a core document among multiple writings, that evidences the alleged contractual promises. The court determined that New York law, not New Mexico law, applies because New York has the greatest interest in regulating the conduct of its resident agents and protecting non-residents who engage in business there. The alleged oral agreements for a lifetime agency, the creation of a trust, and a testamentary disposition all fall within categories of contracts that must be in writing under New York's Statute of Frauds. Bry argued that a 'confluence of memoranda,' including the 'Harvard Agreement,' O'Keeffe's wills, and trusts, satisfied the writing requirement. However, citing Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., the court held that piecing together documents is only permissible when there is at least one foundational document that establishes the underlying contractual commitment; other documents may only supply missing terms, not create the promise itself. The court found that none of the documents presented by Bry contained a binding commitment from O'Keeffe; for example, the language in the Harvard Agreement was merely 'precatory,' expressing a wish rather than a directive. Therefore, the contract-based counterclaims are dismissed. The court, however, denied summary judgment on the quantum meruit claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the services Bry allegedly performed as a 'publicist' and 'curator' were so distinct from her duties as a sales agent that she might be entitled to separate compensation.
Analysis:
This case provides a significant clarification of the 'confluence of memoranda' doctrine under the Statute of Frauds, as established in Crabtree. The court's decision firmly establishes that the doctrine cannot be used to manufacture a contractual promise from a collage of documents where no single document contains the fundamental agreement. This reinforces the Statute's purpose of preventing fraudulent claims based on alleged oral agreements for significant, long-term obligations. The ruling also delineates the narrow circumstances under which a quantum meruit claim can survive alongside an express contract, limiting it to services demonstrably and fundamentally outside the scope of the written agreement. This creates a high bar for parties seeking extra-contractual compensation.
