## Facts

- Alice I. Cardoza (defendant) and her husband created an inter vivos trust providing that the surviving spouse would receive the marital property held in the trust.
- The husband later executed a will leaving $2,500 to his sister, Rose Cardoza Haase (plaintiff), but when he died there was no probate estate from which to satisfy the bequest.
- Wanting to carry out her husband’s wishes, Cardoza voluntarily paid Haase $2,500 from her own funds.
- About 18 months after the husband’s death, during Cardoza’s illness, Haase claimed Cardoza stated that her husband had directed Cardoza to pay Haase $10,000 and to pay $3,000 to Loretta M. Haase (Loretta).
- Cardoza offered to pay Haase $50 per month toward these alleged sums, and Haase accepted; Cardoza made eight monthly payments.
- Haase later demanded that Cardoza sign a note for the alleged unpaid balance; Cardoza refused and stopped making payments.
- Haase did not show that she changed her position, surrendered any right, or otherwise suffered a detriment in reliance on Cardoza’s statements or the monthly payments.
- Haase sued to recover the remaining balance of the alleged $10,000 obligation and also sued on Loretta’s alleged $3,000 claim after Loretta assigned that claim to Haase.
- At the close of Haase’s case-in-chief, the trial court granted Cardoza’s motion for nonsuit; Haase appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Cardoza’s alleged oral promise (made to her deceased husband and later repeated to Haase) to pay Haase $10,000 and Loretta $3,000 created an enforceable obligation that Haase could sue upon.
2. Whether Cardoza’s partial performance (eight monthly payments) supplied a basis to enforce the alleged promise despite the lack of bargained-for consideration.
3. Whether Haase’s evidence supported an estoppel theory (including promissory estoppel) sufficient to defeat nonsuit, given the absence of any detrimental reliance or change of position.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of nonsuit.
- Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Haase, the alleged promise to make further payments was gratuitous and unsupported by consideration.
- Cardoza’s voluntary payments did not convert a gift promise into an enforceable contract or impose a duty to continue paying.
- Haase failed to prove facts supporting estoppel because she showed no reliance-based detriment or other change in position tied to the alleged promise.

## Legal Principles

- A contract requires consideration; a bare promise to make a gift is not enforceable.
- A person’s voluntary payments, made from generosity or from a desire to honor a deceased spouse’s wishes, do not by themselves create a binding obligation to continue paying.
- Enforcement based on estoppel requires proof that the promisee relied on the promise and suffered a substantial detriment (or otherwise changed position) because of that reliance.
- On review of a nonsuit, the court accepts the plaintiff’s evidence as true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor; nonsuit is still proper when the evidence does not establish a legally sufficient claim.

## Conclusion

Haase could not recover the alleged unpaid balance because Cardoza’s claimed promise to pay additional sums to Haase (and to Loretta, through assignment) was a gratuitous undertaking unsupported by consideration, and Haase offered no evidence of reliance-based detriment that could substitute for consideration; therefore, the nonsuit for Cardoza was properly granted and affirmed on appeal.


Haase v. Cardoza, 331 P.2d 419, 165 Cal. App.2d 35 (1958)