## Facts

- Paul J. Marmer co-owned and operated a family pharmacy with his father, Henry Marmer, and assumed added responsibilities as the business became more technologically oriented.
- Henry arranged certificates of deposit (CDs) held in Henry’s name as trustee for Paul; the CDs were repeatedly rolled over rather than cashed out.
- In connection with Medicaid planning, Henry transferred assets to his daughter, June S. Marmer, who later cashed the CDs and did not remit the proceeds to Paul.
- Paul sued June in the Probate and Family Court to recover the CD funds; the claim was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
- June died in 2006; Richard D. Kaufman, June’s child, became administrator with the will annexed of June’s estate.
- Paul alleged that he and Richard later reached an oral settlement under which Richard would (i) pay Paul $136,000 for the CDs, (ii) give Paul half of June’s assets, and (iii) pay Henry’s nursing-home care until Henry qualified for Medicaid.
- The alleged settlement was not executed in a signed writing.
- Paul brought suit in Superior Court to enforce the alleged oral agreement; Richard moved for summary judgment, asserting lack of consideration.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged oral settlement agreement was supported by legally sufficient consideration.
2. Whether, assuming Paul’s account of the discussions was true, the alleged promises were enforceable when Paul did not surrender a new claim or undertake a new legal detriment.

## Decision

- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for Richard, concluding the alleged agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration.
- The Appeals Court modified the judgment to include an express declaration that the alleged agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration and, as modified, affirmed.
- The courts treated the consideration question as a matter of law suitable for summary judgment, even crediting Paul’s version of events.

## Legal Principles

- An enforceable contract requires consideration: a bargained-for exchange involving a legal detriment to the promisee or a legal benefit to the promisor.
- A promise is not supported by consideration where the promisee gives up no new right, undertakes no new obligation, and provides no forbearance of a viable claim.
- Moral or familial motivations, standing alone, do not supply consideration and do not convert a gratuitous promise into an enforceable contract.
- Settlement-type promises are enforceable only when they reflect an exchange of concessions or the release/forbearance of an arguably valid claim, not merely a unilateral commitment to pay or share assets.

## Conclusion

The courts held that the alleged oral family settlement was unenforceable because Paul did not provide a bargained-for exchange—no new legal detriment or release of a viable claim—and Richard received no legal benefit beyond moral or familial reasons for making the promises.


Marmer v. Kaufman, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 1116 (2010)