Tuckwiller v. Tuckwiller
413 S.W.2d 274 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The fairness and adequacy of consideration for a contract to devise property in exchange for lifetime services must be evaluated prospectively, based on the circumstances as they existed at the time the contract was made, not retrospectively based on the actual duration of services rendered.
Facts:
- Flora Metta Morrison, a 73-year-old woman, owned a 160-acre farm and suffered from Parkinson's disease, a progressive condition.
- Concerned about her future and wanting to avoid a nursing home, Morrison repeatedly asked Ruby Tuckwiller, her nephew's wife, to quit her job and provide lifetime care.
- On May 3, 1963, Morrison and Tuckwiller executed a written agreement wherein Tuckwiller promised to provide lifetime nursing, meals, and care for Morrison.
- In exchange for this care, Morrison agreed to devise her farm to Tuckwiller upon her death.
- At the time of the agreement, Morrison was considered mentally alert, and her normal life expectancy was several years.
- Relying on the agreement, Ruby Tuckwiller resigned from her job on May 6, 1963.
- Later that same day, Morrison suffered a medical emergency and, while waiting for an ambulance, insisted on having the written agreement formally witnessed.
- Flora Metta Morrison died on June 14, 1963, approximately six weeks after the contract was signed.
Procedural Posture:
- Ruby Tuckwiller sued the executor of Flora Metta Morrison's estate and Davidson College, the residuary legatee, in a Missouri trial court, seeking specific performance of the contract.
- The trial court found in favor of Tuckwiller and issued a decree ordering specific performance.
- The executor and Davidson College, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Missouri Supreme Court.
- Ruby Tuckwiller is the appellee in the appeal.
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 court properly grant specific performance for a written contract to devise real property in exchange for lifetime care, even if the promisor's unexpectedly early death results in a significant disparity between the value of the services rendered and the value of the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Welborn, Commissioner
Yes. A court will grant specific performance for a written contract to devise property in exchange for lifetime services when the contract is fair at its inception, as fairness and adequacy of consideration must be judged prospectively, not retrospectively. The court reasoned that the crucial factor is the nature of the bargain when it was struck, not how it turned out due to subsequent, unforeseen events. At the time of the contract, Tuckwiller undertook an obligation of uncertain and potentially long duration, giving up her secure employment. For Morrison, the contract secured personalized care and avoided institutionalization. Because the contract concerned real property, for which monetary damages are an inadequate remedy, and the agreement was fair when made, specific performance is the appropriate remedy, despite the short period of service.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that courts will not use hindsight to invalidate contracts that were fair at the time of their formation. It establishes that aleatory contracts, where the value of performance depends on an uncertain future event (like a person's lifespan), are enforceable so long as the parties entered the agreement fairly. The case strongly distinguishes written contracts to devise property from oral ones, noting that specific performance is the rule, not the exception, for written contracts concerning real estate when the Statute of Frauds is not an issue. This provides greater certainty for individuals entering into lifetime care agreements.
Unlock the full brief for Tuckwiller v. Tuckwiller