The Estate of George A. Henry v. Nadene Woods
77 N.E.3d 1200
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Woods provided in-home care and household services to George Henry from 1998 to 2012, initially paid for care of Henry's wife and later unpaid while Woods and Henry cohabited and socialized as a couple.
- After Henry's death, Woods filed an amended claim against his estate seeking $381,355 for 14 years of services (housekeeping, caregiving, supplies, adult diapers); the executor substantially disallowed the claim.
- A probate bench trial produced sua sponte findings and the court partially allowed Woods' claim, awarding $125,400; the Estate appealed.
- Central factual points: Woods lived with Henry but maintained a separate residence, provided escalating care (including wound care and medication monitoring), and there was evidence Henry sometimes paid for meals and made remarks suggesting Woods would be "taken care of."
- Procedural posture: Indiana Court of Appeals reviews trial court's sua sponte findings for clear error and considers whether the probate court applied the correct legal standard (implied contract/unjust enrichment vs. family gratuitousness presumption).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probate court applied the wrong legal standard by not treating Woods as a family member entitled to a presumption of gratuitous services | Woods argued she could recover under implied contract or unjust enrichment without the familial gratuitousness presumption because she and Henry were cohabitants and services were requested/expected to be paid | Estate argued Woods was effectively a family member living together with Henry, invoking the rebuttable presumption that services rendered in a family context are gratuitous and require express/implied contract evidence to overcome | Court: No error—presumption for biological/marital family not automatically applied to nonmarital cohabitants; recovery can proceed under implied contract or unjust enrichment as supported by evidence |
| Whether a specific factual finding (Henry's statement that Woods would be "well taken care of") was clearly erroneous | Woods relied on neighbor testimony to support inference of Henry's intent to compensate | Estate argued the inference was unreasonable and testimony insufficient | Court: Finding supported by testimony; not clearly erroneous (no reweighing of evidence) |
| Whether evidence sufficed to support partial recovery on implied contract theory | Woods argued Henry requested/accepted services, she expected payment, and there were communications suggesting compensation would occur | Estate argued lack of express contract and insufficient proof Henry intended to pay | Court: Sufficient evidence for implied contract or unjust enrichment; partial allowance supported |
| Whether unjust enrichment could support recovery | Woods asserted measurable benefit conferred and unjust retention by Estate | Estate contended no obligation to pay for services rendered in familial/cohabiting context | Court: Unjust enrichment relief available—Estate benefited (care avoided nursing home costs) and retention without payment would be unjust |
Key Cases Cited
- Neibert v. Perdomo, 54 N.E.3d 1046 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (cohabitants may recover under express/implied contract or unjust enrichment; prior exclusions for cohabitants have eroded)
- McMahel v. Deaton, 61 N.E.3d 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (declining to revisit precedent allowing equitable remedies for formerly cohabiting couples)
- Estate of Prickett v. Womersley, 905 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. 2009) (family-member presumption that services are gratuitous; rebuttable only by evidence of express or implied contract)
- Bright v. Kuehl, 650 N.E.2d 311 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (elements for recovery under implied contract and unjust enrichment articulated)
- Turner v. Freed, 792 N.E.2d 947 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (illustrates that expectation of monetary payment need not be proven in certain cohabitant claims)
- Reed v. Reid, 980 N.E.2d 277 (Ind. 2012) (defines unjust enrichment elements)