## Facts

- Sarah D. P. Hodgkin owned and lived alone on a home farm near Lewiston, Maine.
- On February 8, 1915, she wrote her daughter and son-in-law, Joseph A. Brackenbury, proposing that if they moved from Missouri to Maine at their expense and cared for her on the farm for life (with rooms reserved for her), they would have the use and income of the premises and household goods, and “have the place” upon her death.
- The offer was not withdrawn or modified before the plaintiffs acted on it.
- In late April 1915, the Brackenburys moved to Maine, took possession, and began performing the caregiving arrangement.
- Relations deteriorated within weeks; Mrs. Hodgkin brought minor suits against Mr. Brackenbury, ordered the couple to leave, and they refused.
- On November 7, 1916, Mrs. Hodgkin deeded the farm to her son, Walter C. Hodgkin, reserving a life estate for herself.
- Walter took the deed with notice of the plaintiffs’ agreement and without bona fide purchaser status, and served a notice to quit the same day, then filed a forcible entry and detainer action to remove the plaintiffs.

## Issues

1. Whether Mrs. Hodgkin’s letter was a definite offer forming a unilateral contract accepted by the plaintiffs’ performance.
2. Whether the plaintiffs’ performance created an equitable interest in the farm sufficient to impress a trust on the legal title.
3. Whether the plaintiffs materially breached the agreement or whether Mrs. Hodgkin was at fault.
4. Whether equity could grant reconveyance, impose a trust, and enjoin eviction, rather than leaving plaintiffs to a remedy at law.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the equitable decree for the plaintiffs and dismissed the defendants’ appeal.
- The letter constituted a definite offer of a unilateral contract; acceptance occurred when the plaintiffs moved and began performance.
- The plaintiffs’ performance created an equitable interest in the land, and Mrs. Hodgkin’s legal title was impressed with a trust in the plaintiffs’ favor consistent with the agreement.
- The court found no breach by the plaintiffs; Mrs. Hodgkin was at fault in attempting to drive them off and evade the arrangement.
- Walter’s deed could not defeat the plaintiffs’ rights because he took with notice and not for value, and equity could enjoin his eviction action and require reconveyance to protect the trust.

## Legal Principles

- An offer inviting performance rather than a return promise can form a unilateral contract; substantial performance constitutes acceptance and makes the offer irrevocable as to that performance.
- Substantial performance in reliance on a promise concerning land can create an equitable interest enforceable in equity, including by impressing a trust on the holder of legal title.
- A transferee who takes property with notice of an existing equitable obligation, and without bona fide purchaser status, takes subject to that obligation.
- Equity may grant injunctive relief and order reconveyance where necessary to protect trust-based and equitable interests in real property and to prevent use of summary possession procedures to defeat those interests.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a family land-and-care arrangement as a unilateral contract accepted by performance, held that the plaintiffs’ reliance and performance gave them an equitable interest in the farm, imposed a trust on the legal title, and blocked an attempted eviction engineered through a notice-holding transferee.


Brackenbury v. Hodgkin, 116 Me. 399, 102 A. 106 (Me. 1917)