## Facts

- Warren Casey loaned Milo Popovich $10,000.
- In 1986, Casey wrote and signed a letter to Popovich addressing the loan; Popovich witnessed Casey sign it.
- The letter stated that if either party died before the loan was repaid, the remaining loan balance would be cancelled.
- The letter also stated that if Popovich survived Casey, Casey would leave Popovich “100 times the remaining balance of the loan” from his estate.
- Popovich alleged he provided personal services to Casey from 1984 to 1986 and gave up certain opportunities at Casey’s request.
- Popovich claimed those services and forbearances were the consideration for Casey’s promise in the letter.
- Casey died in 1988 with the loan not fully repaid; Popovich filed a claim against the estate for the loan cancellation and the “100 times” amount.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1986 letter stated an enforceable contract supported by consideration, obligating the estate to pay Popovich 100 times the unpaid loan balance at Casey’s death.
2. Whether the complaint alleged sufficient facts to state a breach-of-contract claim, or was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the contract count for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the letter did not plausibly allege a bargained-for exchange creating a binding contractual obligation during Casey’s life.
- The court concluded the alleged consideration consisted of past services and indefinite forbearances that were not adequately pleaded as requested in exchange for the promise.
- The court treated the “100 times” provision as a gratuitous, testamentary-type promise rather than an enforceable contract.

## Legal Principles

- A promise to confer a benefit at death is not enforceable as a contract absent clear contractual intent and valid consideration showing a bargained-for exchange.
- Past services generally do not constitute consideration for a later promise; moral obligation, affection, or gratitude is not legal consideration.
- A breach-of-contract complaint must allege facts showing a valid contract (including consideration), the claimant’s performance, breach, and resulting damages; allegations that show only a gratuitous promise are subject to dismissal.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because the letter, read with the pleaded facts, showed at most a donative intent to benefit Popovich at death, not a contract supported by bargained-for consideration enforceable against the estate.


In re Estate of Casey, 583 N.E.2d 83 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991)