## Facts

- In 1889, Julia Sheldon went to live with her uncle and aunt, Henry Wilkinson and his wife, at Wilkinson’s request to care for them as they aged.
- Sheldon moved in with the understanding that she would be compensated by receiving Wilkinson’s property after he and his wife died.
- For approximately 34 years, Sheldon provided substantial domestic and physical care to Wilkinson and his wife while living with them.
- In 1919, Wilkinson executed a written promissory note to Sheldon promising to pay her $30,000 at the time of his death as payment for the services she had provided up to the date of the note.
- The note also provided that Sheldon would be paid the reasonable value of any services she rendered after the date of the note.
- Around the time the note was made, Wilkinson also executed a will leaving Sheldon the residue of his property, but the will was later lost or destroyed.
- After Wilkinson died, Sheldon filed a claim in probate against his estate for (1) $30,000 under the note and (2) additional compensation for services performed after the note; in the alternative, she sought recovery for the value of her services.
- The probate court allowed Sheldon’s claim, awarding $30,000 on the note plus roughly $6,000 for post-note services.
- On appeal, the estate argued that the note lacked consideration and that the family relationship required an express contract and made recovery subject to a six-year statute of limitations.

## Issues

1. Whether Wilkinson’s promissory note payable at his death was supported by consideration and enforceable against his estate for long-term caregiving services.
2. Whether Sheldon’s services to close relatives were presumptively gratuitous absent an express contract, limiting or defeating recovery on the note.
3. Whether a statute of limitations barred recovery for services rendered years earlier when the agreed time for payment was at Wilkinson’s death.
4. Whether the probate court properly awarded additional compensation for services rendered after the 1919 note based on their reasonable value.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the probate court’s allowance of Sheldon’s claim.
- The court held that the promissory note was enforceable against the estate and was supported by consideration in the form of the substantial services Sheldon provided at Wilkinson’s request with an understanding of compensation.
- The court rejected the estate’s reliance on the familial relationship to defeat the claim, concluding that the evidence supported a compensable arrangement rather than purely gratuitous services.
- The court held that the limitations argument did not bar recovery where the contemplated compensation was to be made at death; the claim became enforceable when Wilkinson died.
- The court upheld the additional award for services Sheldon performed after the note, consistent with the note’s promise to pay the reasonable value of those later services.

## Legal Principles

- A promissory note payable at the maker’s death can create an enforceable contractual obligation against the estate when supported by consideration, even though payment is postponed.
- Services rendered at a promisor’s request, under an understanding that the caregiver will be compensated (including by transfer at death), may constitute valid consideration for a later written promise to pay.
- Although services between close family members may be presumed gratuitous, that presumption can be overcome by proof of an agreement or mutual understanding that the services would be paid for.
- When the parties contemplate payment at death, the right to sue generally arises at death for limitations purposes.
- Where a writing promises payment of the “reasonable value” of future services, a court may award compensation for those services based on their reasonable worth.

## Conclusion

Sheldon v. Blackman held that a $30,000 note payable at death was enforceable where a niece provided decades of care to her uncle and aunt at the uncle’s request under an understanding that she would be compensated, and the court also affirmed an additional award for the reasonable value of services performed after the note, rejecting the estate’s consideration and limitations defenses.


Sheldon v. Blackman, 205 N.W. 486 (1925)