## Facts

- Joyce Renee Forester was born in 1961 while her mother, Virginia Forester, was married to Perry Forester.
- Shortly before Joyce’s birth, Perry Forester and Mark E. Scott executed a written agreement framed as a support arrangement benefiting the unborn child.
- Scott promised to pay $15 per week for the child’s support until the child’s eighteenth birthday and agreed not to see the child or mother during the child’s minority; the agreement also stated the child would bear the surname Forester and that no additional support claim would be made against Scott beyond the $15 weekly payments.
- In exchange, Perry Forester agreed to release Scott from claims for alienation of affections, loss of services, and assault and battery involving Virginia Forester.
- The agreement did not state, and the parties did not stipulate, that Scott was Joyce’s father; Joyce did not plead paternity.
- Virginia and Perry later divorced.
- Scott later obtained a bankruptcy discharge; Perry and Virginia were scheduled as unsecured creditors on the agreement and received $140 through the bankruptcy distribution.
- Joyce (through her mother) sued Scott for unpaid weekly payments under the agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff seeking damages for breach of a bilateral contract must prove the contract was supported by sufficient consideration.
2. Whether forbearance or release of asserted tort claims constitutes consideration absent proof that the releasor had an honest and reasonable belief in the validity of the claims being foregone.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment awarding arrearages and ordering ongoing payments, and entered judgment for Scott.
- The court held the plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proving legally sufficient consideration for the agreement.
- The record (limited to stipulations and the written agreement) contained no evidence that Perry Forester honestly and reasonably believed he had valid tort claims against Scott at the time of the release.
- Because lack of consideration was dispositive, the court did not decide whether Scott’s bankruptcy discharge independently barred enforcement.

## Legal Principles

- A party seeking damages for breach of a bilateral contract bears the burden of proving, among other elements, that the contract was supported by sufficient consideration.
- A promise to forbear suit may serve as consideration only if the promisor had an honest and reasonable belief in the validity of the claim being foregone.
- When forbearance is asserted as consideration, the party seeking to enforce the contract must prove the promisor’s honest and reasonable belief as part of establishing consideration.

## Conclusion

The court concluded the support agreement could not be enforced because the plaintiff did not prove consideration: there was no evidence that the released tort claims were believed, honestly and reasonably, to be valid when the release was given, and the judgment for arrearages and future payments was therefore reversed.


Forester v. Scott, 38 Ohio App. 2d 15, 311 N.E.2d 27 (Ohio Ct. App. 1973)