Borelli v. Brusseau | |
---|---|
Court | California Courts of Appeal |
Full case name | Hildegard Lee Borelli, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Grace G. Brusseau |
Decided | January 19, 1993 |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | Superior Court of Contra Costa County, No. C91- 03356 |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | James F. Perley, Carl West Anderson,Marcel B. Poche |
Case opinions | |
judgement affirmed | |
Decision by | James F. Perley |
Concurrence | Carl West Anderson |
Dissent | Marcel B. Poche |
Brusseau v. Borelli, 12 Cal. App. 4th 647 , 16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 16, was a California Superior Court Case from 1992 involving the enforcement of a contract.
Borelli was the wife to an ill and dying man. They had a prenuptial agreement, but when the man fell into a worse state of sickness he agreed give more of his estate directly to his wife. After a stroke, he refused to be put in a hospital or special facility. His wife agreed to take care of him at home if he would agree to give her the title to certain real property. Shortly after, he died without making a change to his will. Brusseau, the executor of his will, refused to give Borelli the property she claimed. Borelli brought a legal suit against Brusseau and demanded that the court mandate him to bequeath the estate, but was ruled against. She subsequently appealed. [1] [2] [3]
The court considered if such a contract, one spouse helping another in time of illness in exchange for title to property, violated public law. The court determined that spouses have an automatic duty to care for each other in times of illness, without need of special contracts. They believed that a spousal agreement that mandated such an arrangement would be contrary to public policy. Borelli claimed that if it were not for the agreement she would have likely left him in his illness. [1] [2] [3]
There was a minority dissenting opinion of the court that believed that spouses did not have such duty of care and should be allowed to enter into contracts as if they were not spouses. [1]
The court ruled that the contract in question did violate public policy and was therefore unenforceable. Brusseau was not compelled to transfer title of the property to Borelli. [1] [2] [3]
Spouses cannot enter into similar contracts like so since, as spouses, they already have certain duties to each other. Such contracts violate public law on marriage contracts. In order for title of property to properly pass from one spouse to another in similar situations, it must be expressly written into a will or other document stating intent. [1] [2] [3]
A prenuptial agreement, antenuptial agreement, or premarital agreement is a written contract entered into by a couple before marriage or a civil union that enables them to select and control many of the legal rights they acquire upon marrying, and what happens when their marriage eventually ends by death or divorce. Couples enter into a written prenuptial agreement to supersede many of the default marital laws that would otherwise apply in the event of divorce, such as the laws that govern the division of property, retirement benefits, savings, and the right to seek alimony with agreed-upon terms that provide certainty and clarify their marital rights. A premarital agreement may also contain waivers of a surviving spouse's right to claim an elective share of the estate of the deceased spouse.
The rule against perpetuities is a legal rule in common law that prevents people from using legal instruments to exert control over the ownership of private property for a time long beyond the lives of people living at the time the instrument was written. Specifically, the rule forbids a person from creating future interests in property that would vest beyond 21 years after the lifetimes of those living at the time of creation of the interest, often expressed as a "life in being plus twenty-one years". In essence, the rule prevents a person from putting qualifications and criteria in a deed or a will that would continue to affect the ownership of property long after he or she has died, a concept often referred to as control by the "dead hand" or "mortmain".
According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. These rights were a key issue in the debate over federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal government was prohibited from recognizing same-sex couples who were lawfully married under the laws of their state. The conflict between this definition and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution led the U.S. Supreme Court to rule DOMA unconstitutional on June 26, 2013, in the case of United States v. Windsor. DOMA was finally repealed and replaced by the Respect for Marriage Act on December 13, 2022, which retains the same statutory provisions as DOMA and extends them to interracial and same-sex married couples.
In insurance, the insurance policy is a contract between the insurer and the policyholder, which determines the claims which the insurer is legally required to pay. In exchange for an initial payment, known as the premium, the insurer promises to pay for loss caused by perils covered under the policy language.
This article addresses torts in United States law. As such, it covers primarily common law. Moreover, it provides general rules, as individual states all have separate civil codes. There are three general categories of torts: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts.
A waiver is the voluntary relinquishment or surrender of some known right or privilege.
An illegal agreement under the common law of contract, is one that the court will not enforce because the purpose of the agreement is to achieve an illegal end. The illegal end must result from performance of the contract itself. The classic example of such an agreement is a contract for murder.
Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party, causing economic harm. As an example, someone could use blackmail to induce a contractor into breaking a contract; they could threaten a supplier to prevent them from supplying goods or services to another party; or they could obstruct someone's ability to honor a contract with a client by deliberately refusing to deliver necessary goods.
Dower is a provision accorded traditionally by a husband or his family, to a wife for her support should she become widowed. It was settled on the bride by agreement at the time of the wedding, or as provided by law.
In contract law, a non-compete clause, restrictive covenant, or covenant not to compete (CNC), is a clause under which one party agrees not to enter into or start a similar profession or trade in competition against another party. Some courts refer to these as "restrictive covenants". As a contract provision, a CNC is bound by traditional contract requirements including the consideration doctrine.
"Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several U.S. states that authorize police to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of a crime to state their name. If there is not reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed, an individual is not required to identify themselves, even in these states.
Armstrong I–VIII were a lengthy series of lawsuits and other legal actions, primarily in the California state courts, arising from Gerald Armstrong's departure from the Church of Scientology (COS). The COS argued that Armstrong, a former COS employee, improperly took private papers belonging to the Church, while Armstrong argued that he took the papers to protect himself from improper disciplinary proceedings and that the Church did, in fact, discipline him improperly.
In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in a number of contract types in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract.
Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States and prior to 1976, Canada, that refers to "an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community". This term appears in U.S. immigration law beginning in the 19th century.
The law of California consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law, as well as case law. The California Codes form the general statutory law, and most state agency regulations are available in the California Code of Regulations.
Implied consent is consent which is not expressly granted by a person, but rather implicitly granted by a person's actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation. For example, if a person is unconscious as a result of injuries sustained during a traffic collision, medical treatment may be provided to that person, despite the unconscious person being unable to expressly grant consent for that treatment.
People v. Berry is a voluntary manslaughter case that is widely taught in American law schools for the appellate court's unusual interpretation of heat of passion doctrine. Although the defendant had time to "cool down" between his wife's verbal admission of infidelity and the killing, the California Supreme Court held that the provocation in this case was adequate to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. The lower court had relied on the traditional definition of "adequate provocation" in its jury instructions. The California Supreme Court reversed Berry's murder conviction, while affirming Berry's conviction for assault using deadly force.
The California Public Records Act was a law passed by the California State Legislature and signed by governor Ronald Reagan in 1968 requiring inspection or disclosure of governmental records to the public upon request, unless exempted by law.
DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner was a lawsuit that was filed by the DVD Copy Control Association in California, accusing Andrew Bunner and several others of misappropriation of trade secrets under California's implementation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The case went through several rounds of appeals and was last heard and decided in February 2004 by the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District.
The California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act is in §502 of the California Penal Code.