125 So. 3d 841
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Ferguson sues Carnes for breach of an oral contract alleged to bind siblings against disinheritance.
- The oral agreement purportedly provided that if one was disinherited, they would split whatever their mother’s estate gave to either of them.
- The mother ultimately disinherited Ferguson and named Carnes as sole beneficiary.
- Carnes moved for summary judgment arguing the oral agreement lacked consideration.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Carnes, finding no consideration.
- On appeal, the court reverses and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there valid consideration for the oral contract? | Ferguson alleges mutual promises constitute consideration. | Carnes argues the oral agreement lacks consideration. | Mutual promises constitute valid consideration; sufficient facts alleged. |
| Do the alleged promises form a bilateral contract despite being oral? | Oral mutual promises create a bilateral contract. | Oral terms without formal written contract are unenforceable. | The pleaded terms show mutual corresponding promises creating a bilateral contract. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Joe Corp. v. McIver, 875 So.2d 375 (Fla.2004) (elements of contract: offer, acceptance, consideration, specific terms)
- Diaz v. Rood, 851 So.2d 843 (Fla.2d DCA 2003) (promises can constitute consideration if unbound to act)
- Ashby v. Ashby, 651 So.2d 246 (Fla.4th DCA 1995) (mutual promises can be valid consideration)
- Wright & Seaton, Inc. v. Prescott, 420 So.2d 623 (Fla.4th DCA 1982) (mutual promises constitute consideration)
- Jenkins v. City Ice & Fuel Co., 160 So.2d 215 (Fla.4th DCA 1935) (mutually enforceable promises as consideration)
- McIntosh v. Harbour Club Villas Condo. Ass’n, 468 So.2d 1075 (Fla.3d DCA 1985) (bilateral contract from mutual promises)
- Corya v. Sanders, 76 So.3d 31 (Fla.4th DCA 2011) (summary judgment standard: de novo review; record viewed in light most favorable to non-movant)
- Fini v. Glascoe, 936 So.2d 52 (Fla.4th DCA 2006) (summary judgment standards and consideration guidance)