## Facts

- Ida M. Rhoads, aunt of Robert M. Reece and S. Earl Reece, was the dominant shareholder of Woodland Lumber Company and died on December 30, 1959.
- Robert qualified as administrator c.t.a. of Rhoads’s estate and published notice to creditors.
- Earl filed a $53,500 claim against the estate on August 5, 1960; the administrator rejected it in writing on October 10, 1960.
- Earl sued in assumpsit on April 7, 1961; the case was tried without a jury, resulting in a judgment for Earl of $34,200.
- Earl asserted he provided extensive services from 1930 onward, including corporate roles at Woodland Lumber Company (director/officer and check-signing authority) and unspecified advice regarding Rhoads’s personal and business affairs.
- Earl testified he received no compensation from the corporation and had no salary arrangement; key testimony about a prior agreement for deferred payment was stricken.
- Earl relied primarily on two unsigned-seal writings dated December 2, 1949, signed by Rhoads, stating in substance her intention to pay Earl $34,200 for services performed from 1930 to 1949.
- The trial court’s award was limited to services from 1930 to 1949, tracking the date range stated in the writings.

## Issues

1. Whether the two 1949 writings and admissible surrounding evidence were legally sufficient to prove an enforceable obligation requiring Rhoads (and thus her estate) to pay Earl $34,200 for services allegedly rendered from 1930 to 1949.
2. Whether the action was barred by the statute of limitations for a non-sealed written promise/simple contract, and whether the 1949 writings could revive or restart limitations for decades-old services.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the judgment for Earl and entered judgment for the administrator.
- The court held the evidence was legally insufficient to support recovery based on the 1949 writings for past services.
- The court held the claim was time-barred and could not be revived by the 1949 writings absent a preexisting enforceable obligation or new consideration.

## Legal Principles

- A promise to pay for past services, when not under seal and unsupported by proof of a prior legal duty or new consideration, is generally unenforceable as a contract.
- Claims for compensation arising from long-term cooperation within a family relationship or a closely held corporation are scrutinized closely; compensation is not implied without clear proof of a definite agreement.
- Where the record lacks competent evidence identifying and substantiating non-corporate personal services allegedly performed for the decedent, a lump-sum promise is not adequately supported.
- Statutes of limitation apply to claims against estates; a late writing acknowledging or promising payment for stale services does not, by itself, restart limitations or create a timely enforceable claim.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a large, retrospective claim against a decedent’s estate because the claimant relied on non-sealed writings promising payment for past services without sufficient proof of an enforceable prior obligation or definite compensable services, and because the claim was barred by limitations.


Reece, Adm’r v. Reece, 239 Md. 649, 212 A.2d 468 (Md. 1965)