Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P alleges that in 1984 D agreed to establish a $250,000 trust fund for the benefit of P and that, in consideration of D's promise, P provided cleaning, cooking, shopping, catering, hair cutting, laundry, driving and other personal services. P alleges that D failed and refused to perform this oral agreement, in that either a trust fund in the amount of $250,000 was not established or that the trust fund was established and subsequently liquidated, and that as the result of D's breach P has sustained damages in the amount of $250,000. In her quantum meruit count, P alleges that from 1976 through 1994 she provided the above services to D his family and employees; that P expected to be paid for such services; that D accepted and received benefit from the services provided by P; and that D failed to pay P the reasonable value of $250,000 for the services. D raised the statute of frauds as an affirmative defense to both counts. The trial court granted D a judgment on the pleadings as to both counts based solely upon the application of the statute of frauds. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.