## Facts

- Warren Morrow and Betty Morrow (plaintiffs) sued Warren’s sister, Woodye Morrow, and Woodye’s son, Dennis M. Morrow (defendants), arising from events surrounding care of the parties’ mother, Maude Morrow.
- Plaintiffs alleged that Maude was ailing and that they provided substantial care and services for her during her later years.
- Plaintiffs claimed Woodye obtained title to Maude’s property and orally agreed that, if plaintiffs cared for Maude, then upon Maude’s death Woodye would sell certain property/mineral interests, pay plaintiffs first for their services, and divide the remainder equally among Maude’s heirs.
- After Maude’s death (Nov. 23, 1973), Woodye conveyed certain mineral interests to Dennis; the conveyance was described as made without consideration.
- Plaintiffs sought (1) compensation for services rendered in caring for Maude and (2) equitable relief to set aside the conveyance of the mineral interests to Dennis.
- The district court, sitting without a jury, found the evidence insufficient to prove an agreement to pay plaintiffs for their services and treated the services as gratuitous.
- Even though it denied the services claim, the district court ordered the mineral conveyance set aside and directed that the proceeds from the surface sale (less certain expenses) and the mineral interests be distributed evenly among Maude’s eight surviving children.
- Plaintiffs appealed, challenging the denial of their claim for services and also arguing they were entitled to a new trial.
- On appeal, the court noted that, as an oral contract made before Maude’s death, the services claim would have been barred by a three-year limitations period by January 1978, but defendants did not raise limitations.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs proved, by clear and convincing evidence, an enforceable oral agreement by Woodye to compensate them for caring for Maude.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs’ motion for new trial, including whether the standards discussed in *Federal Corp. v. Independent School Dist. No. 13* applied to plaintiffs’ motion.

## Decision

- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the trial court was not clearly wrong in finding no clear and convincing evidence of an agreement to pay plaintiffs for intra-family caregiving; the services were properly treated as gratuitous.
- The court affirmed denial of a new trial, concluding plaintiffs’ motion did not satisfy the *Federal Corp.* standards and that those standards applied only prospectively to motions filed after February 8, 1980.
- The court left intact the trial court’s equitable relief setting aside the mineral-interest conveyance and ordering equal distribution among Maude’s eight surviving children.

## Legal Principles

- Services rendered within a close family relationship are presumed gratuitous; a claimant seeking payment must show facts demonstrating a mutual understanding that compensation would be paid.
- To recover on an alleged oral agreement for compensation in a family setting, the claimant must prove the agreement by clear and convincing evidence.
- In an equitable case, an appellate court reviews the record and weighs the evidence but will not reverse unless the judgment is clearly against the weight of the evidence, giving weight to the trial court’s assessment of proof.
- A motion for new trial must satisfy applicable procedural standards; the *Federal Corp.* requirements were treated as prospective only, applying to motions filed after February 8, 1980.
- A limitations defense for an oral contract (three years) must be raised by the defendant; if not pled, it is not a basis for decision on appeal.

## Conclusion

*Morrow v. Morrow* affirmed a trial court’s refusal to award compensation for caregiving services because the plaintiffs failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, an oral agreement to pay for services that were presumed gratuitous within the family. The appellate court also upheld denial of a new trial and confirmed that the *Federal Corp.* motion-for-new-trial standards applied only prospectively, while leaving undisturbed the trial court’s equitable order setting aside a no-consideration mineral-rights conveyance and directing equal distribution of sale proceeds and mineral interests among the mother’s eight surviving children.


Morrow v. Morrow, 612 P.2d 730 (1980)