Umscheid v. Simnacher
106 A.D.2d 380, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21413, 482 N.Y.S.2d 295 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York General Obligations Law § 5-1105, a written promise to pay for past services is unenforceable unless the writing contains an unequivocal promise to pay a sum certain at a date certain, and the promisor possessed the requisite mental capacity to enter into the contract.
Facts:
- From 1973 until May 1980, Julia Umscheid provided domestic services and care for her friend, Matilda Simnacher.
- On November 6, 1979, Simnacher signed a handwritten letter stating, 'I want Julia to be paid for her services when I sell a piece of property.'
- On June 9, 1980, Simnacher purportedly signed a document granting a power of attorney to Umscheid, which included a memorandum stating a desire to 'pay Julia Umscheid for coming up to my house and looking after me, my property, and my animals.'
- During this period, physicians who had contact with Simnacher testified that she was suffering from 'organic brain syndrome or senile dementia' and was disoriented and not rational.
- Umscheid was appointed conservator of Simnacher's estate.
- While acting as conservator, Umscheid sold Simnacher's property for a price 'well below the fair market value.'
- Umscheid then reimbursed herself $21,577.50 from the proceeds of the sale for expenses, many of which were not documented.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 21, 1982, Julia Umscheid was appointed conservator of Matilda Simnacher's estate by the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (a trial-level court).
- Umscheid, in her capacity as conservator, filed an application with the court for reimbursement of $46,973 for past services rendered to Simnacher.
- The trial court conducted a hearing on the application.
- In an order dated November 3, 1983, the trial court denied Umscheid's application for reimbursement and, on its own initiative (sua sponte), removed her as conservator.
- Umscheid (petitioner-appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do written documents promising payment for past services create an enforceable contract under New York General Obligations Law § 5-1105 when they do not state a specific amount or payment date, the consideration is vaguely described, and the promisor's mental capacity at the time of signing is found to be deficient?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (Mollen, P. J., Titone, Bracken and Rubin, JJ., concur)
No. The written documents do not create an enforceable contract. For a promise based on past consideration to be enforceable under New York General Obligations Law § 5-1105, the writing must contain an unequivocal promise to pay a sum certain at a date certain and express the consideration with specificity. Here, the documents failed on all counts; they were vague, did not specify an amount or payment date, and required extrinsic evidence to understand the consideration. Furthermore, the court credited physician testimony that Simnacher lacked the mental capacity to execute a contract when she signed the documents. The court also rejected a claim for quantum meruit, reasoning that the long-standing friendship between the women suggested the services were rendered gratuitously out of affection, not with an expectation of compensation. Finally, the court affirmed Umscheid's removal as conservator for breaching her fiduciary duty by selling property below market value and reimbursing herself for undocumented expenses.
Analysis:
This decision strictly construes the statutory exception that allows for enforcement of promises based on past consideration, requiring exacting specificity in the written document. It establishes that vague promises to pay for past services, even when written, are insufficient without clear terms like a specific amount and date. The ruling also highlights the critical importance of contractual capacity, affirming that a contract is voidable if one party lacked the mental ability to understand the agreement. Finally, it reinforces the high standard of a fiduciary's duty of loyalty and care, confirming that self-dealing and mismanagement of assets are grounds for removal.
