Wilhoite v. Beck
230 N.E.2d 616, 141 Ind. App. 543 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where services are rendered by one person to another, the law implies a promise to pay for their value. While a presumption that services were rendered gratuitously may arise if the parties lived together as a family, this presumption can be rebutted by circumstances showing an expectation of payment on one side and an intent to pay on the other.
Facts:
- Around 1939, Flossie B. Lawrence arrived uninvited at the home of her distant (second or third) cousin, Ruth Beck.
- Lawrence lived in Beck's home continuously until her death in July 1963, a period of over two decades.
- During her time in the home, Lawrence was employed and known to be extremely independent, often cooking for herself, entertaining her own guests, and coming and going as she pleased.
- Lawrence was averse to charity and would become resentful if she suspected she was receiving it.
- Beck provided Lawrence with lodging and care, instructing her hired help to look after Lawrence without her knowledge.
- At one point, Beck canceled her plans to move because the new home would not have a room available for Lawrence.
- In her will, Lawrence named Beck as one of six cousins to share equally in the residue of her estate and included a provision directing her executrix to pay all of her "just debts".
Procedural Posture:
- Ruth Beck filed a claim in the trial court against the Estate of Flossie B. Lawrence for $27,837 for room, board, and care furnished to the decedent.
- The case was tried by the court without a jury.
- The trial court found in favor of the claimant, Ruth Beck, and entered a judgment against the Estate for $11,368.
- The Executrix for the Estate of Flossie B. Lawrence (appellant) filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court overruled.
- The Executrix for the Estate of Flossie B. Lawrence appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Court of Indiana.
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 implied contract to pay for over 20 years of room, board, and care exist when the recipient, a distant cousin of the provider, lived in the provider's home but maintained extreme independence, and the provider did not intend the services to be a gift?
Opinions:
Majority - Faulconer, J.
Yes, an implied contract to pay for the services exists. The law generally implies a promise to pay for valuable services one accepts from another, and to establish such a contract, there must be an intention to pay and an expectation of payment. While services rendered between family members living together are often presumed to be gratuitous, that presumption is rebuttable. The court found that the relationship of second or third cousins is too distant, on its own, to create this presumption. Furthermore, the evidence did not establish that Lawrence and Beck lived together as a 'family,' which is defined as a household under one head with reciprocal duties of support. Lawrence's extreme independence and separate life within the house negated such a finding. Even if a presumption of gratuity did arise, the circumstances rebutted it. Lawrence's character, her aversion to charity, and Beck's testimony that she never intended the services to be a gift all support the inference that both parties understood that compensation was intended.
Analysis:
This decision refines the 'family relationship' doctrine in the context of implied contracts by establishing that a distant blood relation, like a second cousin, is insufficient by itself to trigger the presumption of gratuity. It provides a functional test for what constitutes a 'family' for legal purposes, focusing on the existence of a single household with reciprocal duties rather than mere cohabitation. The case underscores that the presumption of gratuity is always rebuttable by strong circumstantial evidence, allowing courts to find an implied contract where justice and the parties' conduct suggest that payment was intended.
Unlock the full brief for Wilhoite v. Beck