Woods v. Fifth-Third Union Tr. Co.
22 Ohio Law. Abs. 549, 6 N.E.2d 987, 54 Ohio App. 303 (1936)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In disputes between close family members, services rendered by one to another are presumed to be gratuitous. To overcome this presumption and establish a contract for payment, there must be clear and convincing evidence of an express promise manifesting a clear intention to create a legally binding obligation.
Facts:
- For the six years preceding the death of his mother, Susan L. B. Woods, the appellant son provided her with personal attention and assistance.
- During this period, the mother lived in a hotel, while the son lived with his family about one mile away.
- The son's services included helping his mother manage her property, which consisted of securities valued at approximately $80,000.
- On several occasions, the mother stated to third parties and to her son that he 'was to be paid for his services' or that she 'would pay him for everything he did'.
- The son never made a demand for payment at any point during his mother's lifetime.
- Upon her death, the mother's will provided the son with an inheritance greater in value than the amount he later claimed for his services.
Procedural Posture:
- The son, as plaintiff, filed an action against the executor of his mother's will in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County (a trial court) to recover compensation for personal services.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence during the trial, the defendant moved for an instructed verdict.
- The trial court sustained the defendant's motion, instructing the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant.
- The trial court overruled the plaintiff's motion for a new trial and entered a final judgment on the verdict for the defendant.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) on questions of law.
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 mother's general statement that her son 'would be paid' for his services, made within a parent-child relationship, constitute clear and convincing evidence of an express contract sufficient to overcome the legal presumption that such services were rendered gratuitously?
Opinions:
Majority - Matthews, J.
No. A mother's general statements that her son would be paid for his services do not constitute clear and convincing evidence of an express contract. The law presumes that services rendered between a parent and child are gratuitous, stemming from moral duty and affection rather than an expectation of compensation. To rebut this presumption, the plaintiff must prove an express contract with clear and convincing evidence, a higher standard than the typical preponderance of the evidence. The court found the mother's language—that her son 'would be paid'—to be ambiguous. Such words do not necessarily manifest contractual intent; they could equally express an intention to provide a reward through a will, which she did. The son’s failure to demand payment during his mother's life further demonstrates that he did not regard the arrangement as a contract. The provision in the will, which exceeded the amount claimed, satisfied any intention to 'pay' or 'requite' the son for his services.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the heightened evidentiary standard required to prove the existence of a contract for services between close family members. It clarifies that vague, informal statements about future payment are insufficient to overcome the strong legal presumption that such services are gratuitous. The ruling protects estates from claims based on ambiguous expressions of gratitude made within a family context. Future claimants in similar situations must present evidence of a much more explicit and formal agreement to succeed, demonstrating a clear, mutual intent to form a legally binding contract rather than merely expressing familial affection or testamentary intentions.
