Congregation Kadimah Toras-Moshe v. DeLeo – Case Brief
Summary of Congregation Kadimah Toras-Moshe v. DeLeo, 405 Mass. 365, 540 N.E.2d 691 (Mass. 1989).
Facts: On four occasions and in the presence of witnesses, DeLeo (D) made an oral promise to the Congregation’s spiritual leader to give the Congregation Kadimah Toras-Moshe (P) $25,000. DeLeo died intestate without having put the promise in writing and his estate refused to honor the promise.
The Congregation had planned to use the money to transform a storage room into a library named in honor of DeLeo. The Congregation sued in Massachusetts state court contending that the promise was enforceable because it was supported either by consideration and bargain or by reliance. The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s judgment in favor of DeLeo.
Issue: Under what circumstances will an oral donative promise be enforced?
Holding and Rule: An oral donative promise may not be enforced if it is not in writing or not relied upon. The allocation of the money for the purpose of renovating the storage room did not create the necessary acts of reliance. A hope or expectation is not equivalent to either legal detriment or reliance. The promise lacked consideration because there was no conditions placed on how the money could be used and indication as to what the Congregation was required to do in return for DeLeo’s promise.
A charitable subscription is ‘an oral or written promise to do certain acts or to give real or personal property to a charity or for a charitable purpose.’ To enforce a charitable subscription a party must establish that there was a promise to give some property to a charitable institution such as a religion or religious organization, and that the promise was supported by consideration or reliance.
In regard to the promissory estoppel issue, Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 states that a charitable subscription is binding without proof that the promise induced action or forbearance. Assuming that this court would apply § 90, there is no injustice in declining to enforce the promise. Although there is no absolute requirement of consideration or reliance in regard to promises made to charities, the official comments illustrate that these are relevant considerations and we decline to enforce the promise.
Disposition: Affirmed.
Notes: A key element in this case is that the promissor is deceased. The Congregation argues that a promise to a charity is enforceable without consideration or detrimental reliance, and that it is merely trying to enforce a contract against the decedent’s estate. The court on the other hand appears to be reluctant to take a bequest that was never written into a will (which would not be enforceable) and turn it into a contract.