The Effect of Relational Intimacy on Estate Claims
| Publication year | 1992 |
| Pages | 699 |
| Citation | Vol. 21 No. 4 Pg. 699 |
1992, April, Pg. 699. The Effect of Relational Intimacy On Estate Claims
Where services are rendered to an individual who is aware of the benefit and accepts it, the law implies a promise by the recipient to pay for what has been received.(fn1) In such a situation, legal value is present or quasi contract theory applies, mandating payment for what has been provided.(fn2) However, where services are performed by those in a close family relationship, a gratuity by the provider may be legally presumed.(fn3) The presumption is overcome by a preponderance of the evidence.(fn4)
This article discusses the presumption that services provided to family members are rendered gratuitously where the service provider is a close relative of the decedent and where the relationship between these parties was, in addition, factually intimate.
Many cases have considered claims for compensation filed by those in close consanguinity with now-deceased family beneficiaries for services performed by the claimants.(fn5) Because of diverse fact patterns, the results have not been consistent. However, the applicable rule which the courts have applied in estate claim cases is firmly stated: where there is close kinship between the decedent and the service provider, a presumption exists that the services were rendered gratuitously. For claims to be sustained by close relatives, this presumption must be overcome.(fn6) The maxim is this: a person cannot provide an unsolicited kindness to kin and thereafter make the kindness a matter of claim against the donee.(fn7)
In Wilhoite v. Beck, a 1967 case before the Indiana Supreme Court, the facts were as follows:
Ruth Beck filed a claim in Lawrence's estate for room, board, care and companionship for twenty-one-and-one-half years. In response to the cousin's claim, $11,368 was granted by the probate court, about $1.40 per day for the term of Flossie's stayFlossie B. Lawrence arrived at the home of [her cousin]... Ruth Beck in 1939 or 1940, apparently uninvited, unannounced and unexpected. [She] stayed until her death [in 1963].(fn8)
The appellate court sustained the lower court's judgment because
Equitable interests determined the trial court's finding. While the relationship of distant cousins is insufficient to raise the presumption that services performed by one for the other are gratuitous, the actual family-like relationship and the intimacy of the kin found to exist created the burden of proving by implied contract or in equity that payment legally was justified.in justice and fairness under the circumstances ... the law will imply a contract [in a situation such as this] and require payment.(fn9)
In Cotton v. Roberts' Estate,(fn10) the presumption applicable to kindred that services performed by one for the other are done gratuitously prevented a nephew from recovering for services rendered to his aunt. The nephew alleged that he had performed compensable activities for his relative from 1921 to the date of her death in 1956, a period of thirty-five years.
The court found that the claimant and his aunt were bound "by bonds of deep family affections."(fn11) While they lived in homes "approximately 150 yards apart, they lived together on the same farm virtually as one family."(fn12) The nephew's evidence did not establish that his services for the decedent---driving her automobile when asked, transporting her, running errands, getting her groceries, feeding her livestock, milking two to four of her cows daily, hauling her crops and tending her sheep---were anything but gratuitous.(fn13) Because there was an intimate family relationship, the burden of overcoming the presumption was on the nephew, and he failed to prevail.
A claim under the quantum meruit theory was not barred by the statute of limitations because the time period did not begin running until the decedent's death in...
To continue reading
Request your trial