Gleason v. Gleason
Ohio Court of Appeals
582 N.E.2d 657 (1991)
- Written by Kheana Pollard, JD
Facts
In 1979, the parents of Walter Gleason (plaintiff), Hilda Gleason (defendant) and Murray Gleason, promised Walter that they would convey to Walter one-half interest in their farm. In exchange, Walter was to maintain the farm and pay its expenses, which he began to do that same year. Upon Murray’s death in 1981, Hilda retained sole ownership of the farm and promised Walter that the deal was still good. In 1988, Hilda conveyed the farm to Walter’s brother, James Gleason (defendant). Although Walter was again assured that the deal was still in effect, James demanded that Walter leave the farm. By that point, Walter had spent $27,250 to maintain the farm. Walter had also grown crops on the farm and made significant improvements to the land. Walter brought suit against Hilda and James, asking either to be reimbursed or for the enforcement of the promise that was made to him. Hilda and James claimed that no promise was ever made to Walter and sought for Walter to pay them for his use of the land since 1979. The lower court found in favor of Walter. Hilda and James appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stephenson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
