Estate of Jesmer v. Rohlev

In August 1985, Natasha Rohlev (plaintiff) moved from Colorado, where she lived with her husband, to Chicago to live with her ailing uncle, Solomon Jesmer. Jesmer died on October 10, 1987, and his will left Rohlev $5,000. Rohlev filed a claim against Jesmer’s estate (defendant), seeking $50,000 for her services to Jesmer from September 1, 1985, until Jesmer’s death, in addition to a claim for loss of consortium due to Rohlev leaving her husband in Colorado. Rohlev claimed she served as a companion, cooked for Jesmer, ran the household by doing the shopping and cleaning, reviewed Jesmer’s mail, and planned parties for him. In October 1985, Rohlev began full-time employment with the University of Chicago Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. through 4:00 p.m. Rohlev claimed that upon her return home, she would shop for and prepare dinner. A full-time nurse, Ollie Cooper, lived with Jesmer when Rohlev moved in, but Rohlev claimed that until a night nurse was hired in December 1985, Rohlev tended to Jesmer’s needs at night while Cooper slept. By the end of Jesmer’s life, three nurses cared for Jesmer. Rohlev claimed that Jesmer begged Rohlev to stay with him and repeatedly promised that he would take care of her in his will. Rohlev also claimed that Jesmer promised to help her mother move to Chicago from Russia. In support, Rohlev filed the deposition of Marshall Patner, who testified that Jesmer had told him that Rohlev had given up a great deal to move to Chicago and that he owed her, mentioning the salary of Nurse Cooper, which was $25,000. The estate presented a different picture, proffering evidence that Jesmer allowed Rohlev to live with him as a favor so she could save money and that Rohlev often went out and did not come home. The nurses testified that they did the cooking and caring for Jesmer, that a night nurse had begun working for Jesmer before Rohlev moved in, and that Jesmer had expressly refused to provide financial help to Rohlev with moving her mother to the United States. The probate court granted summary judgment to the estate, holding that Rohlev’s allegations did not amount to an implied contract. Rohlev appealed.