De Cicco v. Schweizer

Blanche Schweizer married Mr. Gulinelli in 1902.

4 days before the wedding, the wealthy parents of Ms. Schweizer executed a contract with Mr. Gulinelli. The parents-in-law of Mr. Gulinelli agreed therein that in exchange for the consideration of marriage, they would pay $2,500/year ($90,000/yr in 2023) for the rest of their daughter's life.

Moreover, Mr. Gulinelli was promised that his wife Ms. Schweizer would 1 day inherit her share of the Schweizer estate.

The senior Mr. Schweizer (parent & parent-in-law of the couple) made the annual payments from the inception of the couple's marriage in 1902 till 1912. De Cicco, on behalf of the couple, sued Mr. Schweizer for the cessation of the annual payments.

De Cicco (for the married couple) sued Mr. Schweizer for breach of contract in a New York state court. De Cicco won in the trial court.

If the parties to a valid contract agree not to rescind or modify that contract [marriage] in exchange for a promise from a 3rd party, does the parties' agreement constitute consideration for the 3rd party's promise?

==can the promise to stay married be a consideration?

The elder Schweizers argued that the couple were already engaged when the 1902 contract was signed. Thus, the actual marriage constituted the fulfillment of a pre-existing duty.

Yes. If both parties to a valid contract agree not to rescind or modify that contract in exchange for a promise from a 3rd party, the parties' agreement may constitute consideration for the 3rd party's promise.

A joint promise to both parties (the couple) by a 3rd party in order to induce performance (staying married) requires review of the circumstances to determine if consideration exists.

The engaged couple were legally allowed to call off the wedding.