Facts
- Marie Vandugteren orally promised Anne Renfro that Vandugteren would name Renfro as the principal beneficiary of certain real property in Vandugteren’s will.
- In exchange, Renfro agreed to provide Vandugteren nursing, general care, and other services during Vandugteren’s lifetime.
- Vandugteren executed a will with witnesses that matched the oral arrangement, naming Renfro as principal beneficiary.
- Vandugteren later executed a new will that removed Renfro as a beneficiary.
- Renfro sued Vandugteren asserting multiple claims based largely on the oral agreement and Renfro’s performance of services, including damages for breach of contract, specific performance, declaratory relief, and quantum meruit.
- Vandugteren died while the case was pending, and her personal representative, James L. Dodge, was substituted as the defendant.
- The estate raised defenses including that Renfro failed to perform, that Renfro had been paid for some or all services, and that any claim to enforce an oral agreement to make a will or devise property was barred by Florida Statutes § 732.701 (succession agreements) and/or § 725.01 (statute of frauds).
- After a nonjury trial, the trial court dismissed all claims except quantum meruit and awarded Renfro $4,000 plus costs, with each party bearing her own attorney’s fees.
- Renfro appealed the dismissal of her contract and equitable-enforcement claims.
Issues
- Whether Florida Statutes § 732.701 bars enforcement of an oral agreement to make a will or give a devise of real property when the agreement is not in a writing signed in the presence of two attesting witnesses.
- Whether a claimant who provided services under an unenforceable will-making agreement may still recover the reasonable value of those services in quantum meruit.
Decision
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed.
- The court held that the oral agreement’s primary purpose was an exchange of services for a testamentary devise of real property, bringing it within § 732.701.
- Because the agreement was not in a writing signed by the decedent in the presence of two attesting witnesses, it was not binding or enforceable; contract damages, specific performance, and declaratory relief based on the oral will-making contract were properly dismissed.
- The court left intact the trial court’s quantum meruit judgment awarding Renfro $4,000 for services rendered, along with the cost and fee rulings.
Legal Principles
- An agreement to make a will, to give a devise, or not to revoke a will or devise is unenforceable unless it is in writing and signed by the agreeing party in the presence of two attesting witnesses. Fla. Stat. § 732.701(1).
- When the essence of a bargain is a promise to transfer property at death by will in exchange for lifetime services, § 732.701 governs enforceability of the agreement.
- The fact that the decedent executed a properly witnessed will consistent with the alleged bargain does not substitute for the statute’s requirement of a properly executed written agreement for enforcement of the contract.
- Although the promised testamentary transfer cannot be enforced when § 732.701’s formal requirements are not met, the service provider may seek restitutionary relief (quantum meruit) for the reasonable value of services actually provided to prevent unjust enrichment.
Conclusion
Renfro v. Dodge holds that an oral promise to devise real property by will in exchange for caregiving services is unenforceable under Florida’s succession-agreement statute unless memorialized in a writing signed with two attesting witnesses, so the claimant cannot obtain contract or specific-performance relief tied to the promised devise but may recover the reasonable value of services in quantum meruit.