Schumm v. Berg
21 A.L.R. 2d 1051, 231 P.2d 39, 37 Cal.2d 174 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An oral contract between a mother and a putative father for the support of their illegitimate child is a valid and enforceable contract for the benefit of the child. A mother's forbearance from suing for paternity and her promise to name the child after the father constitute valid consideration for the father's promise to provide support.
Facts:
- In May 1947, Gloria Schumm became pregnant with a child by Wallace Beery, a prominent and wealthy motion picture star.
- Beery refused Schumm's request to marry her to legitimize the child.
- Schumm then demanded that Beery acknowledge paternity, stating her intent to sue for a paternity declaration and child support if he refused, which Beery feared would damage his social and professional standing.
- In August 1947, while Schumm was still pregnant, she and Beery entered into an oral agreement.
- Under the agreement, Schumm promised not to institute any paternity action during her pregnancy and to give their son the name 'Wallace'.
- In exchange, Beery promised to provide for the child's support and education until age 21, including purchasing insurance policies that would pay $100 per week and provide a $25,000 endowment at age 21.
- The child, Johan Richard Wallace Schumm, was born on February 7, 1948, after Gloria Schumm had married Hans Schumm.
- Beery failed to perform his obligations under the contract before he died, except for making nine weekly payments of $25.
Procedural Posture:
- Johan Richard Wallace Schumm, by his guardian, filed a claim against the estate of Wallace Beery to enforce the oral contract for support.
- The executors of Beery's estate rejected the claim.
- Schumm then filed a complaint against the executors in the Superior Court of California (trial court).
- The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, effectively dismissing the case.
- Schumm appealed the judgment of dismissal directly 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:
Does an oral agreement between a mother and a putative father, where the mother promises to forbear from suing for paternity and to name the child after the father in exchange for the father's promise to support the child, constitute a valid and enforceable contract for the benefit of the child?
Opinions:
Majority - Carter, J.
Yes, such an agreement constitutes a valid and enforceable contract for the benefit of the child. The court reasoned that the contract was between Gloria Schumm and Wallace Beery, with the child, Johan Schumm, as a third-party beneficiary, not a contract made by the child through an agent. Gloria's promises served as valid consideration. Her forbearance from suing for paternity during pregnancy was a legal detriment to her, as she shared the legal obligation for the child's support and had a right to initiate the action. Furthermore, the privilege of naming a child is recognized as valid consideration, and the court will not inquire into its adequacy. The contract was not an invalid compromise of a minor's claim, as it explicitly preserved the child's statutory support rights. The court also rejected defenses based on the statute of frauds, finding the agreement was not a promise to answer for another's debt, an agreement in consideration of marriage, or a contract for the sale of a chose in action.
Dissenting - Schauer, J.
No. The dissenting justice would have affirmed the judgment of the trial court, adopting the reasoning of the District Court of Appeal opinion which had found in favor of Beery's estate.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the right of an illegitimate child to enforce a contract made for their benefit between their mother and putative father. It clarifies that a mother's forbearance from suing and her agreement on the child's name are legally sufficient forms of consideration, reinforcing the principle that courts do not typically evaluate the adequacy of consideration. The ruling establishes that a private support agreement can exist separately from, and in addition to, the statutory obligation of support, providing an alternative contractual remedy that can survive the death of the promisor father. This creates a more secure path for ensuring the financial support of children born out of wedlock through private agreements.
