Borelli v. Brusseau

12 Cal. App. 4th 647 · California Court of Appeal · 1993

Facts

Hildegard Borelli sued her deceased husband's estate for specific performance of an oral agreement. She claimed her husband promised to transfer property to her if she cared for him at home after his stroke, but he failed to do so in his will. The trial court dismissed her complaint, finding the agreement lacked consideration and was against public policy.

Issue

Can a spouse enforce an oral agreement for property in exchange for providing care to an ill husband at home, or is such an agreement void for lack of consideration and as against public policy?

Holding

The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the agreement was void for lack of consideration and as against public policy because spousal care is a pre-existing marital duty.

Rule

Spouses have a mutual, non-compensable legal duty to provide care and support to each other, including nursing-type services, as part of the marriage contract. Agreements for compensation for such care are void as against public policy and lack consideration.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed 2026-03-02. Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.