In re Greene
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
| In re Greene | |
| Court | Southern District of New York |
|---|---|
| Citation | 45 F.2d 428 |
| Date decided | December 6, 1930 |
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.
April 1926
Greene & Trudel contract
August 1928
Greene's final payment to Trudel
late 1928
Greene becomes bankrupt
late 1928
Trudel files claim in the bankruptcy hearing
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.
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)?
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 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.
