Court Opinion

ID: 9634728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:21:52.875621+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:09.158520
License: Public Domain

SARAW. COMBS, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. When R.E. failed to draft his will in accordance with his promise, he breached his agreement with Rosemary. There can be no other reasonable interpretation of his conduct or of its legal implications. His only obligation under their agreement was to draft his will as the reciprocal counterpart of the will that Rosemary promised to execute.
The majority opinion reasons that the terms of their agreement “did not arise until either R.E. or Rosemary died.” I disagree. The obligation arose immediately. The passage of time alone delayed its execution but did not vitiate or alter its binding nature. In failing to keep his promise, R.E. released Rosemary from her obligation to do so. The promise simply cannot be finessed away under the inescapably clear and simple terms of the agreement.
Breach of the agreement for lack of mutuality is the only possible conclusion that the trial court could have reached. It reasoned correctly. Therefore, I would affirm the court’s entry of summary judgment in this case.