Fiege v. Boehm, 210 Md. 352, 123 A.2d 316 (Md. 1956)

Facts

  • Hilda Louise Boehm and Louis Gail Fiege had sexual relations in 1951, and Boehm became pregnant and claimed Fiege was the father.
  • Before the child’s birth, Fiege allegedly promised to pay Boehm’s pregnancy and childbirth medical expenses, compensate her lost wages, and pay $10 per week in child support until age 21.
  • The alleged promise was made in exchange for Boehm’s agreement to forbear from instituting bastardy proceedings against Fiege.
  • Boehm refrained from filing bastardy charges, and Fiege made payments totaling about $480 from 1951 to 1953.
  • In 1953, a blood test indicated Fiege could not be the child’s biological father, and he stopped paying.
  • Boehm then instituted bastardy proceedings; Fiege was acquitted, largely based on the blood-test evidence.
  • Boehm brought a civil breach-of-contract action to recover the alleged unpaid balance under the support agreement; the trial court instructed that the bastardy acquittal was not binding in the civil case.

Issues

  1. Whether Boehm’s forbearance from filing bastardy proceedings was sufficient consideration for Fiege’s support promise when later evidence and a bastardy acquittal indicated he was not the father.
  2. Whether Fiege’s bastardy acquittal precluded Boehm’s subsequent contract action to enforce the support agreement.

Decision

  • The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed judgment for Boehm on the jury verdict.
  • The court held that forbearance to assert a claim can be valid consideration when the claimant honestly and reasonably believes the claim may be valid at the time of the bargain, even if the claim later proves unfounded.
  • The court held that the bastardy acquittal did not bar the contract action and was not conclusive on the enforceability of the support agreement.
  • The court approved the trial court’s submission to the civil jury of whether Boehm acted in good faith in making and forbearing the bastardy claim.
  • Forbearance to sue may constitute consideration if the forbearing party had a good-faith intention to pursue litigation that is not frivolous, vexatious, or unlawful, and reasonably believed the claim to be well founded.
  • Forbearance is not consideration when the claim surrendered or withheld is known to be invalid or is asserted without good faith and reasonable grounds.
  • Consideration is assessed based on the parties’ situation and the claimant’s good-faith, reasonable belief at the time of contracting; later-discovered facts do not retroactively negate consideration.
  • A prior bastardy acquittal does not, by itself, preclude a separate civil contract action to enforce a support promise allegedly exchanged for forbearance.

Conclusion

The court enforced a support agreement based on the mother’s good-faith forbearance from initiating bastardy proceedings, holding that such forbearance supplies consideration despite later evidence disproving paternity, and that a bastardy acquittal does not bar an independent breach-of-contract claim.