## Facts

- Flora Metta Morrison owned a 160-acre farm in Saline County, Missouri.
- Morrison’s 1961 will directed that her residuary estate, including the farm, be sold and the proceeds paid to Davidson College to fund a student loan program; Morrison’s nephew (Ruby Tuckwiller’s husband) held an option to buy the farm at appraised value.
- Morrison, elderly and physically ill but mentally competent, wanted to avoid institutional care and sought Ruby Tuckwiller’s personal care and assistance.
- On May 3, 1963, Morrison and Ruby executed a written contract under which Ruby agreed to care for Morrison during Morrison’s life in exchange for Morrison devising the farm to Ruby at death.
- Ruby quit her job in reliance on the agreement and Morrison arranged to meet an attorney to revise her estate plan to reflect the contract.
- Later that day Morrison suffered a severe medical episode, was hospitalized, and never recovered; she died on June 14, 1963 without changing her will.
- Morrison’s executor and Davidson College (as residuary legatee under the will) stood to take the farm proceeds unless the contract was enforced.

## Issues

1. Whether a written contract to devise real estate in exchange for lifetime care is enforceable against a decedent’s estate when the decedent dies before changing a prior will.
2. Whether specific performance should be denied as unfair or unconscionable because the promisor’s early death resulted in a large benefit relative to the services actually rendered.
3. Whether fairness and unconscionability are evaluated at the time of contracting or by hindsight after subsequent events.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the decree ordering specific performance of the contract to devise the farm to Ruby.
- The court held the May 3, 1963 written agreement was valid and supported by adequate consideration.
- The court rejected the argument that the short duration of actual care made enforcement inequitable.
- The court held unconscionability and fairness are evaluated prospectively, as of the time the contract was made, not retrospectively based on later events.

## Legal Principles

- A written contract to devise or convey real estate may be specifically enforced in equity when fairly made and supported by adequate consideration.
- The fairness of a bargain, for purposes of denying specific performance as unconscionable, is judged at contract formation rather than by later outcomes.
- The risk that a promisor may die sooner than expected is a contingency inherent in lifetime-care-for-property bargains and does not, by itself, bar enforcement.
- A residuary beneficiary under a prior will takes subject to the decedent’s enforceable contractual obligations; estate administration must honor such contracts before distributing residue.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a written lifetime-care agreement by ordering the estate to convey the farm to the caregiver, holding that equity assesses unconscionability based on the parties’ risks and expectations at the time of contracting rather than on the promisor’s early death and the resulting disproportionality in hindsight.


Tuckwiller v. Tuckwiller, 413 S.W.2d 274 (Mo. 1967)