## Facts

- George Nees died intestate, leaving five children as his heirs.
- At death, Nees owned (1) the “Sackett Street property” outright and (2) the “Atlantic Avenue property,” which he held in trust for two children, Sophia Nees and George Nees.
- Shortly after the death, the children met with an attorney, opened Nees’s strongbox, and found the deed for the Atlantic Avenue property; the attorney gave it to Sophia and said it was hers.
- The other siblings were surprised and displeased because they believed the Atlantic Avenue property had belonged to the decedent outright.
- Plaintiffs (other siblings) testified that Sophia stated she and George would give up their shares of the Sackett Street property if the others would not “bother” them or “dispute” their entitlement to the Atlantic Avenue property, and that George agreed.
- The Sackett Street property was later sold, and proceeds were distributed without withholding Sophia’s and George’s shares for plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs sued to enforce the alleged promise that Sophia and George would relinquish their Sackett Street shares.

## Issues

1. Whether Sophia’s and George’s alleged promise to surrender their shares of the Sackett Street property was supported by consideration based on a compromise of a disputed claim regarding the Atlantic Avenue property.
2. Whether plaintiffs’ alleged forbearance from contesting the Atlantic Avenue property constituted consideration where plaintiffs had no colorable legal or equitable claim and did not threaten or attempt to assert one.

## Decision

- The trial court dismissed the complaint and entered judgment for defendants.
- The Appellate Division affirmed.
- The court held there was no consideration for the alleged promise because there was no genuine dispute being compromised and no bargained-for forbearance of a colorable legal right.

## Legal Principles

- Consideration may consist of a compromise of a disputed claim or forbearance to assert a legal or equitable claim, including a claim later shown unfounded, if asserted in good faith.
- Forbearance is consideration only when the promisee refrains from asserting a legal or equitable right (or at least a good-faith, colorable claim) as part of a bargained-for exchange.
- Refraining from asserting a claim where the party has no color of right and neither threatens nor attempts to assert the claim is not legal detriment and does not supply consideration.
- A “naked promise” arising from family discussions, without bargained-for legal detriment or benefit, is unenforceable.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because plaintiffs’ agreement not to “bother” defendants about property held in trust for defendants did not involve compromise of a bona fide dispute or forbearance of any colorable claim; lacking consideration, the alleged promise to surrender inheritance shares could not be enforced.


Springstead v. Nees, 125 A.D. 230, 109 N.Y.S. 148 (2d Dep’t 1908)