Borelli v. Brusseau

Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four · 1993 · Family Law

Family Lawspousal supportinterspousal contractspublic policyconsiderationmarriagesupport dutyconsideration

Facts

The complaint alleged that appellant and decedent married in 1980 after entering an antenuptial contract. After several hospitalizations and then a stroke in 1988, decedent told appellant he did not want to be placed in a nursing home and wanted to live at home despite needing round-the-clock care. In October 1988, the parties allegedly made an oral agreement under which decedent promised to leave appellant specified property if she would care for him at home for the duration of his illness. Appellant alleged that she performed, but decedent's will instead left her $100,000 and his interest in their jointly held residence, with most of the estate passing to his daughter.

Issue

Can a wife enforce an alleged agreement under which her husband promised to leave her property in exchange for her providing in-home care during his illness, or is her promise and performance merely the discharge of a preexisting marital duty that supplies no consideration and renders the agreement void as against public policy?

Rule

Under California's statutory and common-law understanding of marriage, spouses owe each other personal duties of mutual support, including caring for an ill spouse. Because that support obligation arises from marriage itself and is personally owed, a spouse cannot claim compensation for performing it apart from marital property rights; thus personal performance of such support is not new consideration for an interspousal compensation agreement, and such an agreement is void as against public policy.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In San Diego, Elena Ruiz and her husband, Victor Ruiz, have been living together for years when Victor develops advanced Parkinson's disease. Victor orally promises to leave Elena his separate cabin near Lake Tahoe if she quits her part-time job and personally bathe, feed, and supervise him at home so he can avoid a residential care facility; Elena does so until Victor dies, but his will leaves the cabin to his son.

If Elena sues Victor's estate for specific performance of the oral promise, what is the strongest argument for the estate under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that spouses personally owe each other mutual support, including caring for an ill spouse. Nursing-type, in-home personal care is part of that marital duty, so agreeing to perform it does not furnish new consideration for a separate compensation promise. The majority also treated such sickbed bargaining as contrary to public policy.