O'Farill Avila v. González

Jos Antonio O’Farill Avila (O’Farill) (defendant) and Louisa González-Chacon (González) (plaintiff) lived together for three years and had a daughter. According to González, O’Farill made two promises. First, O’Farill promised to pay González $5,000 per month. Although this written agreement contained only the promise to pay González money, González alleged these payments were made in exchange for González’s taking care of their daughter and not working. The agreement did not contain a duration, but González alleged that O’Farill asked her to do this because O’Farill did not want a stranger raising his daughter in her formative years. González gave up her career and took care of the child during the child’s formative years. O’Farill stopped making the payments after several months. González also alleged an oral agreement existed in which González agreed to make a down payment on a house and O’Farill agreed to make the mortgage payments. González complied, and O’Farill stopped making the mortgage payments after two years. González sued O’Farill for breach of contract, and the trial court found in favor of González. O’Farill appealed, arguing that no valid contracts existed. Specifically, O’Farill argued that parol evidence could not be used to support a finding of consideration, the monthly-payment promise did not contain an essential term of duration, and the statute of frauds barred oral agreements that could not be completed within one year.