Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantstatutetrialtestimonywillunjust enrichment
contractplaintiffstatutetrialwillcredibility

Related Cases

Doscher v. Wyckoff, nan
View Case »
Johnston v. Jones, 66 U.S. 209, 1 Black 209, 1861 WL 7651, 17 L.Ed. 117
View Case »
Canale’s Estate v. Binghamton Amusement Co., Inc., 45 A.D.2d 424, 357 N.Y.S.2d 931
View Case »
Ivey v. Estate of Ivey, 261 So.3d 198
View Case »
Houston v. Coram, 215 Ga. 101, 109 S.E.2d 41
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Crail v. Blakely, 8 Cal.3d 744, 505 P.2d 1027, 106 Cal.Rptr. 187

Facts

Plaintiffs, the children of Joe Crail, Sr. and Lucile Sprague Crail, brought suit to enforce an oral agreement between their parents that the surviving parent would bequeath all their combined property to the children. Mr. Crail, the surviving parent, left the bulk of the property to other beneficiaries instead. The trial court found that the oral agreement existed, that Mr. Crail breached it, and that his estate was estopped from relying on the statute of frauds to avoid enforcement of the agreement.

Plaintiffs, the children of Joe Crail, Sr., and Lucile Sprague Crail, both deceased, brought suit to enforce an oral agreement between their parents whereby the surviving parent would devise and bequeath all of their combined property (which was entirely community property) to plaintiffs.

Issue

Did the evidence support the existence of an oral agreement between the Crails, and could the beneficiaries of the surviving parent's will be estopped from relying on the statute of frauds?

The Supreme Court, Burke, J., held that evidence was sufficient to establish agreement and that evidence to effect that mother, who had allegedly agreed with father to make mutual wills, survivor to leave combined estate to children, feared that father would breach agreement and might prevail upon her to rescind agreement, coupled with fact of mother's suicide, established serious change of position in reliance on agreement sufficient to invoke estoppel to prevent beneficiaries under father's later will from relying on statute of frauds.

Rule

An oral agreement to make mutual wills can be enforced if there is clear and convincing evidence of its existence, and a party may be estopped from relying on the statute of frauds if it would result in fraud or unjust enrichment.

Although the statute requires that an agreement to make a provision by will be in writing (Civ.Code, s 1624, subd. 6; Code Civ.Proc., s 1973, subd. 6), a party will be estopped from relying on the statute where fraud would result from refusal to enforce an oral contract.

Analysis

The court found substantial evidence supporting the existence of the oral agreement, including testimony from a disinterested witness who recalled the Crails discussing their intent to protect their children through their wills. The court also noted that Mrs. Crail's suicide indicated a serious change of position in reliance on the agreement, which justified invoking estoppel against the beneficiaries of Mr. Crail's will.

The court stated in its memorandum decision that Mrs. Martis was ‘a disinterested witness whom the Court finds is entirely credible.’ Given her disinterest and credibility, Mrs. Martis' confusion may be easily accounted for: Although she assumed, correctly, that the documents she had read and signed were wills, Mr. and Mrs. Crail referred to a ‘contract’ or ‘agreement.’

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to establish the oral agreement and that the defendants could not rely on the statute of frauds to defeat the plaintiffs' claim.

We have concluded that the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, and that the judgment should be affirmed.

Who won?

Plaintiffs prevailed in the case because the court found that the evidence supported their claim of an oral agreement and that the defendants' reliance on the statute of frauds was unjust.

The trial court found that the alleged oral agreement did exist, that Mr. Crail breached it, that such breach was inequitable, and that his estate and those claiming through him are estopped from relying upon the statute of frauds as a bar to the enforcement of the agreement.

You must be