## Facts

- An attorney (Barngrover) and a detective (Hughes) learned that Jessie Pettigrew was about to file for divorce from J. S. Pettigrew.
- Before service of process, Barngrover and Hughes entered a written agreement with Pettigrew to prepare evidence, try the divorce case, furnish proof of the wife’s infidelity, and secure Pettigrew a divorce on a cross-petition.
- Pettigrew paid $25 upfront; the agreement promised an additional $1,000 if the professionals were successful in obtaining a divorce, or if Pettigrew compromised the suit or otherwise prevented them from achieving that result.
- The agreement limited compensation to $25 if no divorce was obtained, unless failure was caused by Pettigrew’s later conduct.
- Barngrover and Hughes performed services in connection with the divorce litigation.
- The divorce case was ultimately compromised, and the wife obtained a divorce without opposition.

## Issues

1. Whether a contract to furnish proof of adultery and secure a divorce for a success-based fee (including payment triggered by compromise) is void as against public policy.
2. If the contract is void, whether the attorney and detective may recover the value of their services on a quantum meruit theory.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed a directed verdict for Pettigrew.
- The court held the agreement void as against public policy because its expressed object was to bring about dissolution of the marriage.
- Because the agreement was illegal, the plaintiffs could not recover either the $1,000 under the contract or compensation on quantum meruit for services performed in furtherance of the agreement.

## Legal Principles

- Contracts whose object is to procure a divorce, or that tend to encourage marital dissolution by giving a representative a financial stake in ending the marriage, are void as against public policy.
- A fee arrangement in a divorce matter that conditions compensation on obtaining a divorce, or penalizes compromise or reconciliation by triggering payment, is unenforceable.
- When services are rendered pursuant to an agreement that is void for illegality or public policy, courts will not grant restitution that would indirectly enforce the prohibited bargain; recovery is barred on both the contract and quantum meruit.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enforce a contingent, result-driven agreement to secure a divorce and denied any alternative recovery for services because the arrangement incentivized dissolution of marriage and was void as against public policy.


Barngrover v. Pettigrew, 104 N.W. 904 (Iowa 1905)