Hill v. Estate of Westbrook

Supreme Court of California · Family Law

Family Lawmeretricious relationshipimplied contractexpress contracthousehold servicesestate claimgratuitous servicesappellate review

Facts

Plaintiff and decedent lived together as man and wife from 1930 until decedent's death in 1946, though they were not formally married, and they had two children. Plaintiff filed a $10,000 estate claim for keeping house, living with decedent as man and wife, bearing two children, performing the usual duties of a housewife, and turning over wages she earned during the relationship. At the second trial, plaintiff also offered evidence that she worked in decedent's liquor store, restaurant, and rooming house and later contributed shirt-factory wages, while defendant offered contrary evidence that she did not perform those services. Plaintiff also introduced evidence that decedent had said he made a will for her and the children and that she would be well provided for at his death.

Issue

Whether the evidence compelled a finding that plaintiff rendered compensable services and monetary contributions in reliance on an express or implied promise by decedent to pay or provide for her at death, rather than gratuitously as part of their meretricious relationship. A subsidiary issue was whether plaintiff could challenge exclusion of her testimony about pre-death matters after agreeing to that ruling at trial.

Rule

When a man and woman knowingly live together in a meretricious relationship, there is no implied obligation to compensate the woman for household services in the absence of an express agreement, oral or written, for compensation. An express contract to compensate for services may be enforceable unless it was made in contemplation of the illicit relationship, and whether the contract was dependent on that relationship is a question of fact. On appeal, supported factual findings are conclusive, and a party who expressly agrees with an evidentiary ruling cannot later complain of it on appeal.

🔒

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.

Tara Nolan and Evan Pierce lived together unmarried in Sacramento for nine years, openly holding themselves out to friends as a couple. Tara cooked, cleaned, did laundry, and managed the household, but the two never discussed paying her for those efforts. After Evan died, Tara filed a claim against his estate seeking compensation for those household services.

Which is the strongest argument for the estate?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that when parties knowingly live together in a meretricious relationship, there is no implied obligation to compensate one partner for household services absent an express agreement. Tara's cooking, cleaning, and laundry, without any express promise of payment, do not support recovery on an implied-contract theory.