## Facts

- Lenore Foman claimed her father orally promised not to execute a will, assuring her an intestate share in return for her promise to care for and support her mother.
- Foman alleged she fully performed, but her father later devised his property to Elvira A. Davis, his second wife and executrix.
- Foman sued in federal district court seeking what she would have received through intestacy.
- Davis moved to dismiss on the ground that an oral promise not to make a will was unenforceable under the statute of frauds.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- Foman promptly moved to vacate the dismissal and sought leave to amend to add an alternative quantum meruit theory for the value of services rendered.
- Before the district court ruled on those motions, Foman filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal; after the motions were denied, she filed a second notice of appeal from that denial.
- The court of appeals dismissed the first appeal as premature, treated the second as not reaching the dismissal because it did not specify the original judgment, and affirmed denial of vacatur and amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether the second notice of appeal, read in context, was sufficient to obtain review of both the order denying post-judgment motions and the underlying judgment of dismissal.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) where the amendment added an alternative theory and no reason for denial appeared.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded.
- The Court held the court of appeals erred by construing the second notice of appeal narrowly when the record showed an intent to appeal both the dismissal and the denial of post-judgment relief.
- The Court held the denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion because the amendment merely added an alternative theory and no valid reason for denial was apparent or stated.

## Legal Principles

- A notice of appeal should be construed in light of the record as a whole when it reasonably shows the appellant’s intent to seek review and no prejudice results from technical defects.
- Under Rule 15(a), leave to amend should be “freely given when justice so requires.”
- Denial of leave to amend is improper absent a justifying reason such as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of amendment.
- An outright refusal to allow amendment without any apparent or stated reason is an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Court required a functional reading of the notice of appeal and reaffirmed that Rule 15(a) demands liberal permission to amend pleadings, making denial without a stated, supported reason reversible error.


Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962)