Tompkins v. Hoge

Plaintiff brought this action for a declaration of her rights under an agreement, partly oral and partly written, with her aunt, Adaline Hoge, a widow, referred to as defendant. The alleged agreement was a promise by defendant that if plaintiff would come from New York State and live in the home of defendant, keep house, cook, care for and look after said Adaline Hoge and her then husband, William H. Hoge, during the remainder of their lives, they and each of them would provide a home and a good living for plaintiff, and that upon their deaths they would devise and bequeath all of their property, real, personal and mixed, to plaintiff, and plaintiff would receive all of their property upon their deaths; defendant and her husband were then in poor health and defendant was gradually going blind. Plaintiff, relying upon such promises, accepted defendant’s offer. Defendant’s husband died before plaintiff left New York but defendant stated to plaintiff that if she would look after defendant and keep house and cook for her and care for her during the remainder of her life she would receive all of defendant’s property in accordance with her said offer. Plaintiff gave up her position as a school teacher and a salary of $2,500 per year, came to Los Angeles and moved into the home of defendant, and since February 10, 1944, has kept house, cooked for and looked' after and eared for defendant, and has fully and faithfully kept and performed her contract.

A controversy has arisen in that plaintiff maintains that an agreement was made as alleged and that she has faithfully performed it upon her part, while defendant contends that plaintiff has not faithfully performed her contract, that defendant is not required to leave any property to plaintiff but is free to dispose of it in her lifetime or by will in any manner she may choose. In a second cause of action the complaint set forth certain parcels of real and personal property of the alleged value of $65,000 alleged to have been owned by defendant

Mrs. Hoge answered, admitting she had written to plaintiff sometime in 1943 “that if plaintiff wished to come to California and make her home with this defendant and her husband and cook and do the housekeeping for defendant and her husband and care for them when they needed it during their lives that she could do so and that when this defendant and her husband died plaintiff could have whatever they had left but that plaintiff must learn to cook and become a competent housekeeper.” The answer admitted that plaintiff accepted defendant’s offer, that she entered defendant’s home, has done a part of the work but alleged that she has not taken care of defendant competently or carefully or conscientiously. It was alleged that plaintiff has not done more than 20 per cent of the housework and cooking and has been disrespectful, abusive and discourteous to defendant and her friends and employees. It was denied that defendant has secreted any money or other property, or that she has done any act or thing for the purpose of defeating any claims of the plaintiff.

The court declared that the evidence did not show that it was necessary that defendants be restrained from concealing money or property, or that the defendant would sell her securities and hide the money so that plaintiff’s rights will be defeated. It was also found that defendant has failed to pay for plaintiff’s medical care, has failed to adequately support plaintiff and has made unkind and unwarranted statements about plaintiff. It was found to be not true that defendant intends to sell her real property or to hide any of her money. The court found it was not necessary presently to issue an injunction but that “it is necessary and convenient that the court retain juisdiction to make such other and further orders as may be necessary and advisable in the future, particularly with respect to the sale of the real property belonging to the defendant Adaline Hoge, and for the purpose of making such other and further orders regarding the rights and duties of the parties to this action under the terms of said contract.” By the judgment the court reserved jurisdiction to make “other, further and different orders and decrees regarding the property, to temporarily restrain or to enjoin defendants from selling, assigning, transferring, covering up said property or from doing anything for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff or avoiding the performance of said

In March, 1951, upon the affidavit of plaintiff the court issued an order to show cause why defendant should not be restrained from disposing, encumbering, hiding or covering up real or personal property, and from giving August Bracero any money as a gift, or in excess of what he earned. In the hearing which culminated in September, 1951, the court made further findings which incorporated a number of those previously made and which found certain additional facts. It was found that ever since the_ first trial defendant had refúsed to permit plaintiff to perform any of her duties; that defendant had sold securities for $14,530.93 which she received in currency and hid away; that at the time of the first trial defendant had securities and cash of the value of $17,500 and that at the time of the hearing on September 10, 1951, defendant accounted for said sum with the exception of something more than $1,500 for which she did not account. It was found that prior to the first trial defendant’s total reasonable living expenses were about $450 per month, whereas since that trial defendant had been expending more than $775 per month, which was an unreasonable sum for maintenance, care and support. It was found that defendant intends to defeat the rights of plaintiff under the judgment theretofore rendered in that she had secreted her money and property in the past and would continue to do so in order to defeat plaintiff’s rights under the agreement. The court issued an injunction restraining the defendant and others acting for her from giving away, selling, disposing or encumbering, hiding or covering up all or any part of her real or personal property, save and except that she may use so much of her money as may be necessary for her reasonable care, maintenance and support, and restraining defendant from giving any money to August Bracero or anyone else, except the payment in reasonable amounts for services rendered.

Defendant appeals and urges two grounds for a reversal of the judgment: First, that the court was without jurisdiction to render the second judgment, having exhausted its powers in the rendition of the first judgment; and second, both judgments are in error and the second one should be reversed for the reason that it purports to grant specific relief to p1fl.int.iff which is not justified by facts proved and found.

The questions are thus presented whether the second judgment purports to compel specific performance of the agreement by defendant and whether such relief could properly be granted. Manifestly, it does demand specific performance. To be sure, it does not require defendant to make a will, and therefore does not require complete performance, but it does purport to enforce compliance with an obligation, supplied by implication, that defendant shall conserve her estate and limit her expenditures to such sums as may be necessary for her reasonable care, maintenance and support, and as may be earned in the future by August Bracero for services rendered defendant.

The contract as found by the court did not require defendant to conserve her estate or obligate her to possess property at the time of her death. Although she did not promise to live frugally or that she would not make any gifts to others, the judgment imposed that duty.

Since the first judgment is final, the limitations which it places upon defendant’s use of her property must be regarded as a correct construction of the agreement.

In our discussion we shall assume, as the answer admits, that the agreement was in writing and therefore not invalid under section 1973, Code of Civil Procedure and section 1624, Civil Code. There are two valid objections to enforcement of the agreement in equity. The consideration for defendant’s agreement was that plaintiff’s services should be rendered throughout defendant’s lifetime and those services remain uncompleted; plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, for damages, or in quantum meruit.

The factual situation is one that is of common occurrence. Whenever it has arisen the courts have held that one who has undertaken to render personal services as yet uncompleted,

In the early case of Cooper v. Pena, 21 Cal. 403 , the court refused specific performance of an agreement to convey land in consideration of personal services which had not been fully performed saying: “ So far as the agreement is unperformed, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to perform it on his part, for equity will not enforce a contract for personal services, but leave the party to his remedy at law. ... We have already stated that the plaintiff cannot be compelled to complete the services which he agreed to perform, and the fact that he has offered to complete them is not equivalent to actual performance. ... As this is an obligation which the court cannot enforce, there is no principle which would justify it in enforcing the obligation on the other side; and the only course is to decline to interfere, and leave the plaintiff to his remedy for damages.”

The principle is statutory (Civ. Code, §§ 3386, 3390), and has been applied in many cases of agreements to leave property by will or deed as consideration for personal services. And another ground for denying equitable relief is that if the services are such as to be compensable in damages or in quantum meruit, the remedy at law is adequate and exclusive. (O’Brien v. Perry, 130 Cal. 526 [ 62 P. 927 ]; Moore v. Tuohy, 142 Cal. 342 [ 75 P. 896 ]; Flood v. Templeton, 148 Cal. 374 [ 83 P. 148 ]; Pacific etc. Ry. Co. v. Campbell-Johnston, 153 Cal. 106 [ 94 P. 623 ]; Morrison v. Land, 169 Cal. 580 [ 147 P. 259 ]; Berry v. Moulie, 180 Cal. 137 [ 179 P. 686 ]; Roy v. Pos, 183 Cal. 359 [ 191 P. 542 ]; Zellner v. Wassman, 184 Cal. 80 [ 193 P. 84 ]; Poultry Producers etc. v. Barlow, 189 Cal. 278 [ 208 P. 93 ]; O’Brien v. O’Brien, 197 Cal. 577 , 588 [ 241 P. 861 ]; Brown v. Freese, 28 Cal.App.2d 608 [ 83 P.2d 82 ]; Lovelace v. Free, 140 Cal.App. 264 [ 35 P.2d 342 ]; Zaring v. Brown, 41 Cal.App.2d 227 [ 106 P.2d 224 ]; DeMattos v. McGovern, 25 Cal.App.2d 429 [ 77 P.2d 522 ]; Murdock v. Swanson, 85 Cal.App.2d 380 [ 393 P.2d 81 ].)

In Murdock v. Swanson, supra, 85 Cal.App.2d 380 , the plaintiff sued on a claim against an estate based upon an alleged oral contract to make a will. The complaint pleaded an agreement under which the decedent would make a will in favor of plaintiff in consideration of care for the decedent, the rendition of personal services, and the furnishing of certain goods to her and assistance in earing for her property, and if necessary care for decedent in plaintiff’s home. In

Plaintiff has no rights other than those derived from the agreement. The restraints placed upon defendant by the second judgment purport to enforce an obligation to conserve her estate for the benefit of plaintiff. This restraint is only a means to the end that there will be estate remaining upon the death of defendant to he subjected to whatever claims plaintiff may establish under the agreement. An injunction may not be granted to prevent breach of an agreement to render personal services of the nature of those agreed to be rendered by plaintiff. (Civ. Code, § 3423; Lovelace v. Free, supra, 140 Cal.App. 264 .)

The judgment entered October 4, 1951, is reversed.

Wood (Parker), J., and Vallée, J., concurred.

Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied January 15, 1953. Carter, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.