Editing In re Greene

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=Southern District of New York
|citation=45 F.2d 428
|date=December 6, 1930
|subject=Contracts
|other_subjects=Bankruptcy*Family Law
|facts=*Mr. Greene = "Greene" = defendant = a married man
*the claimant = plaintiff = Ms. Trudel = a woman who has an extra-marital affair with Greene
*In the course of the romantic extra-marital affair in the 1920s, Greene routinely gave the woman substantial amounts of money including $70,000 for the woman to purchase a house in Long Island, New York.
*Ms. Trudel was fully aware of Greene's marriage but continued with the affair.
*Greene & Ms. Trudel ended their affair in April 1926 by signing an agreement which was sealed.
*In accordance with the aforesaid agreement, Greene promised to pay Ms. Trudel $1,000/month during their joint lives. Moreover, Greene promised to pay more sums under additional provisions.
*Still more, Greene promised to pay the woman's monthly lease for 4 more years (1926 - 1930).
*In exchange, the woman promised to release Greene from all claims against him.

{{Timeline|1=Greene & Trudel contract|2=April 1926|3=Greene's final payment to Trudel|4=August 1928|5=Greene becomes bankrupt|6=late 1928|7=Trudel files claim in the bankruptcy hearing|8=late 1928|9=|10=|11=|12=|13=|14=|15=|16=|17=|18=}}
|procedural_history=Ms. Trudel demanded
*$250,000 in payment,
*$99,200 for failing to keep a life insurance policy with the woman as the beneficiary, &
*$26,500 for rent

In total, Trudel wanted $375,700 from Greene.


Greene lost in the bankruptcy court.
|issues=Is a payment of $1 paid by Greene to Trudel at the time of the signing of the contract & a general statement of value exchanged between parties sufficient consideration to support a promise to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (100,000s)?


Is $1 sufficient consideration to support a married man's promise to pay his ex-lover more than $375,000 [in the 1930 dollars]?
|arguments=Greene's bankruptcy trustee objected to the woman's claims & filed an appeal.
|holding=No. Nominal payments & vague statements of consideration are insufficient to support a legally enforceable contract between parties.
|judgment=Reversed
|reasons=Judge Woolsey: A promise to pay a person for past co-habitation, or a non-marital sexual relationship, is void for lack of consideration.

Judge Woolsey: Past romance cannot be regarded as consideration. Greene's [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/gratuitous-promise promise was gratuitous] & can't be legally enforced.

Judge Woolsey: The legality of the adulterous affair in the 1920s had no bearing on the judge's opinion.
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.lsd.law/briefs/view/in-re-greene-63279078
|case_text_source=lsd.law/briefs
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/in-re-greene
|source_type=Video summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://casetext.com/case/in-re-greene-5
|case_text_source=CaseText
}}
}}