Hall v. Hall
California Court of Appeal
222 Cal. App. 3d 578, 271 Cal. Rptr. 713 (1990)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Aubrey Hall transferred his house into a revocable trust under which his son David Hall (defendant) would inherit following Aubrey’s death. Subsequently, in contemplation of marriage, Aubrey entered into an oral prenuptial agreement with Carol Hall (plaintiff) under which Carol agreed give up her job, apply for early Social Security benefits, and pay Aubrey $10,000 in exchange for a life estate in Aubrey’s house for the remainder of Carol’s life. After Carol and Aubrey married, Carol fully performed her part of the oral prenuptial agreement. Aubrey commenced the process of amending his trust to grant Carol a life estate but died before the amendments were executed. Carol filed an action against David, as the executor of Aubrey’s estate, seeking specific performance of the oral prenuptial agreement. David challenged, arguing that the oral prenuptial agreement was unenforceable because (1) it was not in writing, as required by the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA), and (2) it would be inequitable to enforce the oral prenuptial agreement because doing so could delay David’s inheritance for many years. The trial court established a life estate in Aubrey’s house on Carol’s behalf, holding that the oral prenuptial agreement was enforceable because Carol had fully performed and had irrevocably altered her position in detrimental reliance on Aubrey’s promise.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Froehlich, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.