Henderson v. Fisher

236 Cal. App. 2d 468 (1965)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps and decedent entered into a written contract for Ps to care for D and to furnish all food necessary or reasonably required band to do all laundry work required by him and to keep the house clean and in good repair and to water the trees and shrubbery and to keep the premises in good condition as long as decedent lives. Decedent was to pay the water and light bills and one-half of the gas bills, and Ps were to pay the telephone bills and the other half of the gas bills. Ps also agreed to clean and repair the decedent's clothing when necessary. Decedent was to execute and deliver a deed of his interest in the real property, including his home and furniture reserving to himself a life estate in the said property. Ps had been friends of decedent and his wife. They often referred to the Bakers as Grandma and Grandpa, and they had on numerous occasions helped by performing various household chores for them. On July 24, 1959, the wife died. The decedent was blind and 86 years old, and could not be left alone. Ps moved into the home, and at decedent's request, his attorney drew up the subject agreement. Decedent was in good health. However, 18 days after the execution of this agreement, he died. Ps performed the services set forth in the agreement for 18 days. The decedent did not execute the deed called for in the contract. Ps filed a creditor's claim in decedent's estate, demanding specific performance of the agreement or in the alternative $5,000. Fisher (D) rejected the claim. Ps sought specific performance or $5,000. The trial court found the agreement was not properly the subject of an action for specific performance, but that Ps were entitled to $381.85 on a quantum meruit basis, this being the amount which the court determined as the value of the services and supplies which Ps furnished to the decedent during his lifetime. The trial court found that the agreement lacked the mutuality, the certainty and the fairness and adequacy of consideration required to have permitted its specific performance. Ps appealed.