Borelli v. Brusseau
California Court of Appeal
16 Cal. Rptr.2d 16 (1993)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Hildegard Borelli (plaintiff) and Michael Borelli were married for nine years until Michael’s death. Several times during the marriage, Michael was admitted to the hospital due to heart problems. Michael became concerned about his health and longevity and discussed his concerns with Hildegard. After suffering a stroke, Michael required full-time medical care. However, Michael did not wish to be admitted to a nursing home, but rather wanted to live at home. Michael agreed to leave certain real and personal property and other assets to Hildegard upon his death, in exchange for her agreement to care for him at home for the duration of his illness. Hildegard performed her promise, but Michael did not. Upon his death, Michael bequeathed Hildegard approximately $100,000 and his interest in the marital home and left the bulk of his estate, including the assets promised to Hildegard, to his daughter, Grace Brusseau (defendant). Hildegard filed a petition against Brusseau, the executor of Michael’s estate, to enforce the purported agreement between Hildegard and Michael. Brusseau moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that any alleged contract was without consideration and void as against public policy. The trial court agreed and dismissed the petition. Hildegard appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Perley, J.)
Dissent (Poche, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.