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

contractlawsuittrialverdictwillcontractual obligation
contractverdictwillcontractual obligation

Related Cases

Kirk v. Ridgway, 373 N.W.2d 491
View Case »
Vickers v. Wichita State University, Wichita, 213 Kan. 614, 518 P.2d 512
View Case »
Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. Famous Music Corp., 557 F.2d 918, 2 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 16
View Case »
Turner v. Shalberg, 70 S.W.3d 653
View Case »
Jackson v. Morse, 152 N.H. 48, 871 A.2d 47
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Levar v. Elkins, 604 P.2d 602

Facts

Mary Elkins and William Levar were in a nonmarital relationship for more than 20 years. After their relationship ended, Elkins claimed rights to property acquired during their time together and brought a lawsuit asserting various causes of action, including contract claims. During the trial, she focused solely on the existence of a contract, abandoning other theories of recovery.

Mary Elkins lived with William Levar in a nonmarital union for more than 20 years. After the relationship ended, Elkins asserted rights to the property which had been acquired during the relationship. To that end she brought suit alleging causes of action in quantum meruit, contract, and equitable division of property.

Issue

Did the evidence support the jury's finding that a contract existed between Elkins and Levar?

Did the evidence support the jury's finding that a contract existed between Elkins and Levar?

Rule

The court applied the principle that a contract can be established through mutual assent and consideration, and that the presumption of gratuitousness can be overcome by evidence to the contrary.

The court applied the principle that a contract can be established through mutual assent and consideration, and that the presumption of gratuitousness can be overcome by evidence to the contrary.

Analysis

The court found that there was conflicting evidence that allowed the jury to reasonably conclude that mutual assent and consideration existed, supporting a contractual obligation. The jury was instructed to determine whether a contract existed based on the evidence presented, and the court upheld the jury's decision as there was room for reasonable disagreement among jurors.

The court found that there was conflicting evidence that allowed the jury to reasonably conclude that mutual assent and consideration existed, supporting a contractual obligation. The jury was instructed to determine whether a contract existed based on the evidence presented, and the court upheld the jury's decision as there was room for reasonable disagreement among jurors.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Elkins, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of a contract.

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Elkins, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of a contract.

Who won?

Mary Elkins prevailed in the case because the jury found sufficient evidence to support her claim of a contractual relationship with Levar.

Elkins testified that in return for services as a housewife and caretaker for Levar's children, and for money contributed over the years, Levar promised to provide for her for the rest of her life.

You must be