Oral Agreement Argument Unsuccessful; Terms of Will Upheld
In re Estate of Spitz-Oose, Docket No. A-0451-22 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Apr. 10, 2024)
Plaintiff Brian Spitz (“Brian”) brought claims against the estate of his mother. The center of the dispute was real estate owned by the mother and Brian’s allegation that his mother promised orally to leave him the property if he provided services for a property management company affiliated with the family. He asserted that he provided the services starting in 1992, without pay and for a number of years, and was thus entitled to the property.
The mother executed a will in 2018 that left the real estate to Brian but did not mention the devise being part of an oral contract with Brian. Then, in 2019, the mother executed a new will that intentionally made no provision for Brian.
In April 2021, the mother sold the property at issue. She passed away later that year, with the 2019 will in place.
Brian initially filed various claims but eventually they were for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
The trial court tried those claims over two days, taking a variety of conflicting testimony. The trial judge determined that he needed to find the existence of the oral contract by clear and convincing evidence, and that based on the testimony and other proofs, there was no enforceable contract.
Brian appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed, on a number of bases, especially deference to the trial court as to its findings based on the evidence at trial.
The Appellate Division also rejected Brian’s claim that the trial court applied the wrong burden of proof, noting that initially, on both days of trial, Brian’s counsel confirmed the applicable standard of proof was by “clear and convincing evidence.” Moreover, the post-trial submittal did not refer to the lesser burden. Therefore, the Appellate Division found, Brian did not raise the issue of varying burdens of proof at trial. Moreover, in any event Brian’s burden of persuasion was by “clear and convincing” evidence. The Appellate Division cited the so-called Dead Man’s Act, N.J.S.A. § 2A:81-2 (emphasis added), which provides:
In a civil action that is commenced or defended . . . by a personal representative on behalf of a decedent, any other party who asserts a claim or an affirmative defense against the . . . personal representative, that is supported by oral testimony of a promise, statement, or act of . . . the decedent, shall be required to establish the same by clear and convincing proof.
The appeals court determined that, under the Dead Man’s Act, Brian’s burden of persuasion – as to both the alleged oral contract between him and his mother, and his claim for unjust enrichment — was by clear and convincing proof.
Finally, since the allegations involved the alleged promise of real estate, the Appellate Division found those to be barred by the statute of frauds. N.J.S.A. § 25:1-13.