Szafranski v. Dunston

Illinois Appellate Court, First District · Contracts

ContractsIVF agreementsDisposition of pre-embryosOral contractsoral contractadvance agreementpre-embryosIVF

Facts

Karla, facing chemotherapy that was expected to destroy her fertility, asked Jacob on March 24, 2010, to provide sperm so they could create pre-embryos for her future use in having a biological child, and he agreed. The next day they signed Northwestern's IVF informed consent form, and later all eight retrieved eggs were fertilized with Jacob's assent, resulting in three viable frozen pre-embryos. After their relationship ended, Jacob objected to Karla's use of the pre-embryos and sought to prevent it, while Karla sought sole custody and control. The trial evidence showed the parties had not expected a long-term relationship and that Jacob repeatedly expressed that he wanted to help Karla have a child.

Issue

Whether the parties' March 24 oral agreement gave Karla the right to use the jointly created frozen pre-embryos without Jacob's later consent, and whether the March 25 informed consent form contradicted or modified that agreement. If no controlling advance agreement existed, the court also had to determine whose interests should prevail under the balancing test.

Rule

Disputes over the disposition of jointly created pre-embryos are resolved first by enforcing any advance agreement between the parties regarding disposition; if no such agreement exists, the court balances the parties' relative interests in using or not using the pre-embryos. An oral agreement is enforceable when there is an offer, acceptance, and a meeting of the minds on sufficiently definite terms, and a court may not add a material term the parties did not express or bargain for. A later IVF informed consent form does not modify or contradict a prior agreement unless its language, read as a whole and in context, shows that the parties intended it to do so.

🔒

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 Phoenix, Maya Ortiz was told that emergency treatment would likely destroy her fertility. She asked her boyfriend, Evan Pike, to provide sperm so embryos could be created and frozen for her future use, and he immediately agreed, saying he wanted to help her have a biological child. After they broke up, Evan tried to stop her from using the embryos.

How should a court begin analyzing this dispute?

Explanation. The majority adopted a hybrid approach: courts must first honor any advance agreement regarding disposition of jointly created pre-embryos. Only in the absence of such an agreement should the court weigh the parties' relative interests in using or not using the pre-embryos. The case rejects skipping contract analysis or imposing automatic ownership rules. (Derived from Szafranski v. Dunston (n.d.).)