## Facts

- Kurt Bunde operated a bakery and had a personal relationship with Lois Smith.
- Smith alleged that, during Bunde’s lifetime, Bunde made oral promises that induced her to move in with him and work in his bakery.
- According to Smith, Bunde told her they would be “partners” and work together in the bakery.
- Smith also alleged Bunde promised she would “never have to worry about having enough money to take care of” herself.
- Smith further alleged that if Bunde died before she did, she could have his home “forever” (described in summaries as the home at 370 Blue Star Highway).
- No written agreement documented any partnership arrangement, any promise of lifetime support, any promise to transfer an interest in real property, or any contract to make a will or devise property at death.
- Smith lived with Bunde and worked in the bakery for years; the bakery was later sold (reported as 1996).
- Bunde died in 1999.
- After Bunde’s death, Smith filed a claim against Bunde’s estate based on the alleged oral promises and, alternatively, sought compensation under an implied-contract/quantum meruit theory for the value of her services.
- Smith testified that she did not expect to be paid wages for her work in the bakery.
- The trial court granted summary judgment (summary disposition) for the estate, concluding the alleged oral contract to make a will was unenforceable. Smith appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an alleged oral agreement promising financial support and a post-death transfer of a home is enforceable against a decedent’s estate without a writing satisfying Michigan’s requirements for contracts to make a will and/or to transfer an interest in land.
2. Whether a claimant may recover from an estate on an implied-contract or quantum meruit theory for bakery services when the claimant testified she did not expect payment for those services.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the estate.
- The court held the alleged promises—especially the promise that Smith would have the home “forever” if Bunde died first—amounted to a testamentary or real-property transfer arrangement that could not be enforced without the required writing.
- The court also rejected Smith’s implied-contract/quantum meruit theory because the record (including Smith’s testimony that she did not expect to be paid) did not show a mutual understanding that her bakery work would be compensated.

## Legal Principles

- Agreements to make a will, to leave property at death, or to convey an interest in real property are generally unenforceable unless the claimant can show a writing that satisfies the governing statutory requirements.
- Oral statements promising general financial security (e.g., “never have to worry” about money) and permanent possession or ownership of a home at death do not bind an estate when the claimant cannot produce a qualifying written contract or similar writing.
- Implied-in-fact contract and quantum meruit require proof that services were rendered with a shared expectation of compensation; a claimant’s admission that no payment was expected defeats an essential element.
- Summary judgment is proper when, even viewing the evidence most favorably to the nonmoving party, the claim fails as a matter of law due to a missing required writing or lack of evidence of an agreement (express or implied) to pay.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Smith’s estate claim because her alleged arrangement with Bunde rested on unwritten promises of support and a home at death that Michigan law would not enforce without a required writing, and her alternative implied-contract theory failed where the evidence—particularly her testimony that she did not expect wages—did not establish a mutual expectation of compensation for her bakery work.


In re Estate of Bunde, 2002 WL 737781 (2002)