Sheldon v. Blackman
1925 Wisc. LEXIS 138, 205 N.W. 486, 188 Wis. 4 (1925)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A subsequent written promise to pay for past services is supported by valid consideration, even if the services were rendered under a prior oral agreement that was void under the statute of frauds. When the value of such services is indefinite or indeterminate, courts will not inquire into the adequacy of the consideration agreed upon by the parties, absent fraud, duress, or undue influence.
Facts:
- Mr. and Mrs. Wilkinson, an elderly couple with no children, made an oral agreement with a claimant.
- Under the agreement, if the claimant faithfully cared for them for the remainder of their lives, she would receive the residue of their estate upon their deaths.
- This oral agreement was legally void under the statute of frauds because it involved real estate.
- The claimant performed arduous and devoted caregiving services for the Wilkinsons for approximately thirty years.
- After receiving these services for three decades, Mr. Wilkinson executed a written promissory note promising to pay the claimant $30,000 from his estate upon his death for her past services.
- At the same time he executed the note, Mr. Wilkinson also executed a will.
- The claimant was in possession of the note after Mr. Wilkinson's death.
Procedural Posture:
- The claimant filed a claim against the estate of Mr. Wilkinson in the trial court.
- The complaint was in two counts: one for the reasonable value of her services, and the other based on the written promissory note for $30,000.
- At trial, the estate's representatives (appellants) offered evidence of the reasonable value of the claimant's services.
- The claimant's counsel objected to this evidence, and the trial court ruled it was inadmissible.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the claimant.
- The representatives of the estate appealed the trial court's 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 a promissory note, given to compensate for thirty years of personal care services previously rendered under a void oral agreement, lack valid consideration, thereby permitting a court to inquire into the adequacy of the amount promised?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
No. A promissory note given to compensate for past services rendered under a void oral agreement is supported by valid consideration, and a court will not inquire into the adequacy of that consideration. The thirty years of services rendered by the claimant, while performed under a technically invalid contract, conferred a benefit of inestimable value upon Mr. Wilkinson. This benefit constitutes a sufficient moral and equitable basis to serve as valid consideration for his subsequent, express written promise to pay. When the value of services is, by its nature, indefinite, indeterminate, and a matter of opinion, such as long-term personal care, the parties to the agreement are the best judges of that value. Absent fraud or duress, the court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the parties by investigating whether the amount promised was 'fair' or 'reasonable.' Therefore, the trial court was correct to exclude evidence regarding the reasonable value of the services as it was irrelevant to the enforceability of the note.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental contract law principle of freedom of contract, upholding the right of parties to determine the value of their own bargains without judicial interference. It establishes that a moral obligation arising from a material benefit received, even under a technically unenforceable agreement, can serve as sufficient past consideration for a new, express promise to pay. The ruling provides security for caregivers and others who provide services of an indeterminate value, ensuring that a deliberate promise of compensation made by a grateful recipient cannot be easily undone by their estate arguing the price was too high.
