## Facts

- In 1939 or 1940, Flossie Lawrence moved into the Indianapolis home of Ruth Beck, who was a distant cousin.
- Lawrence remained in Beck’s home for more than twenty years, until Lawrence died in 1963.
- During the cohabitation, Beck provided Lawrence with housing and meals and also furnished care and companionship as Lawrence aged.
- Lawrence left a will naming Beck and five other cousins as beneficiaries.
- After Lawrence’s death, Beck sought payment from Lawrence’s estate for the value of the room, board, care, and companionship she had provided during Lawrence’s lifetime.
- The estate, represented by Wilhoite, resisted the claim and argued that the judgment for Beck was contrary to law and not supported by the evidence.
- The case was tried to the court (without a jury), and the trial judge entered judgment for Beck.

## Issues

1. Whether the claimant’s long-term provision of room, board, care, and companionship to a distant cousin living in the same household is presumed to be gratuitous, so that the claimant cannot recover from the decedent’s estate absent proof overcoming that presumption.
2. Whether the evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Beck was entitled to compensation from Lawrence’s estate for the services and accommodations provided.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Beck.
- The court concluded that the evidence permitted the trial judge to find that Beck’s services and accommodations were not merely gratuitous acts of family kindness and that compensation could be awarded on an implied agreement theory.
- The court rejected the estate’s challenge that the judgment was contrary to law or unsupported by the evidence, applying the rule that an appellate court will not reweigh evidence from a bench trial.

## Legal Principles

- When people live together as a family unit, services and support are often treated as gratuitous; however, that inference is not conclusive and may be overcome by proof showing that compensation was expected.
- Kinship alone does not automatically bar recovery for household services; the nature of the relationship and the surrounding circumstances may support an implied agreement to pay.
- An implied-in-fact contract may be found from conduct and circumstances showing a mutual understanding that services and support were furnished with an expectation of payment.
- On appeal from a bench trial, the reviewing court does not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility; it affirms if there is evidence of probative value supporting the judgment.

## Conclusion

Wilhoite v. Beck affirmed a trial court’s award to Ruth Beck for decades of room, board, care, and companionship she provided to her distant cousin, Flossie Lawrence. Although the parties lived together and were related, the appellate court held that the trial court could reasonably find—based on the circumstances—that the support was not purely gratuitous and that the estate could be required to compensate Beck under an implied agreement supported by the evidence.


Wilhoite v. Beck, 230 N.E.2d 616 (1967)