## Facts

- Bernyce Green and Maxwell Richmond became engaged after meeting in 1962; Richmond later sought to end the engagement, citing reluctance to marry.
- Green testified Richmond orally promised that if she remained with him and continued to provide services, he would leave her his entire estate by will.
- Green stayed with Richmond for about eight years until his death, providing social, domestic, and business services, and claimed she constrained her career opportunities to remain available to him.
- Evidence showed they occasionally had sexual relations, and that Richmond also had sexual relationships with other women.
- Richmond died leaving a will that did not bequeath his estate to Green; the estate was valued at more than $7 million.
- Green sued the executor in quantum meruit for the reasonable value of services rendered in reliance on the promise.
- Over objection, the trial court admitted the probate inventory showing the estate’s total value; the jury awarded Green $1,350,000.

## Issues

1. Whether the claim was barred as a matter of law because the alleged arrangement was illegal or essentially “meretricious.”
2. Whether admitting the probate inventory (total estate value) to prove quantum meruit damages was erroneous and prejudicial.
3. Whether, excluding the inventory, there was sufficient evidence of damages to avoid a directed verdict.
4. Whether the damages award was excessive such that a new trial was required.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict; Green’s recovery was not barred as a matter of law by illegality or public policy.
- The court held the probate inventory was improperly admitted on the issue of damages because it invited the jury to base the award on Richmond’s wealth rather than the value of services.
- The court ruled that sufficient evidence existed, even without the inventory, to permit a jury to determine the reasonable value of Green’s services.
- The judgment on liability was affirmed, the damages award was vacated, and the case was remanded for a new trial limited to damages.

## Legal Principles

- Quantum meruit recovery is measured by the reasonable value of services actually rendered, not by the value of property allegedly promised or the size of the promisor’s estate.
- A relationship involving sexual conduct does not automatically bar restitution; recovery may be denied only when illegality is a serious, non-incidental part of the consideration or performance, and the record may leave that assessment to the factfinder.
- Evidence of a decedent’s wealth or estate value is generally inadmissible to set quantum meruit damages when its main effect is unfair prejudice and mismeasurement of compensation.
- When an evidentiary error affects only the amount of damages and liability is separable, a new trial may be limited to damages.

## Conclusion

The court permitted Green to pursue quantum meruit for long-term services rendered in reliance on an oral promise to devise an estate, but required a new trial on damages because the jury was improperly exposed to the estate’s inventory value, which risked converting a services-based remedy into a wealth-based award.


Green v. Richmond, 337 N.E.2d 691 (Mass. 1975)