## Facts

- Raymond P. Wirth executed a written pledge shortly before his death, promising to pay Drexel University $150,000.
- The pledge stated that Wirth was “intending to be legally bound” and described the gift as “irrevocabl[e].”
- The pledged funds were to be used to create an endowed scholarship fund in Wirth’s name pursuant to a related letter of understanding.
- The pledge was executed in Pennsylvania and was governed by Pennsylvania law.
- After Wirth’s death, Drexel sought enforcement of the pledge against the estate in Surrogate’s Court; the estate objected, asserting the pledge was unenforceable for “failure of consideration.”

## Issues

1. Whether Pennsylvania’s Uniform Written Obligations Act makes a signed written charitable pledge enforceable despite the absence of traditional consideration when it contains an express statement that the promisor intends to be legally bound.
2. Whether the estate could defeat enforcement by recharacterizing the consideration problem as “failure of consideration” rather than “lack of consideration.”

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order granting Drexel summary judgment and enforcing the pledge against the estate.
- The court held that the pledge fell within Pennsylvania’s Uniform Written Obligations Act because it was a signed writing containing an express statement of intent to be legally bound.
- The court rejected the estate’s “failure of consideration” argument, concluding there was no basis to claim Drexel failed to render any agreed performance.
- With the statutory cure for lack of consideration and no showing of failure of consideration, the estate had no other defense to payment.

## Legal Principles

- Under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Written Obligations Act, a signed written promise is not invalid or unenforceable for lack of consideration if it contains an express statement that the signer intends to be legally bound.
- “Failure of consideration” concerns a failure to render the performance the parties agreed upon; it is distinct from an initial “lack of consideration.”
- A decedent’s estate must satisfy the decedent’s enforceable contractual commitments, including a charitable pledge made binding under applicable law, absent a recognized defense.

## Conclusion

A charitable pledge governed by Pennsylvania law and containing an express statement that the donor intends to be legally bound is enforceable against the donor’s estate notwithstanding the absence of traditional consideration, and the estate cannot avoid liability by asserting “failure of consideration” without proof that the charity failed to perform as agreed.


In re Estate of Wirth, 5 N.Y.3d 875 (N.Y. 2005)