Suggs V. Norris 364 S. E. R Summary

Jordan Williams
Professor David Persky
CRM 123
Case Brief 1
Title and Citation: Suggs v. Norris 364 S.E.2d 159 (1988)
Type of Action: Suggs sued the estate of Norris over compensation for work to maintain decedents produce business. Defendant appealed the verdict in favor of plaintiff saying that their implied contracts were invalid.
Facts of the Case: Darleen Suggs started working and helped maintain the produce business with the decedent, Junior Earl Norris, from 1973 until his death in 1983. During this time and according to several witnesses, the plaintiff did most of the farm work, as well as drive to markets 60 miles away, without aid of the decedent. She also handled all finances and deposited them into their joint bank account, giving her the reason to believe they had an implied contract that she was a partner and would receive one-half of the profits. In

fact, the decedent is found to have relied on the work of the plaintiff to support his alcoholism, pay off the debts attached to the farm, as well as take care of him while he was ill.
Contention of the Parties: Defendant- argued that under assignments of error 4 and 5 that the trial court erred in submitting a quantum meruit recovery issue to the jury because any services rendered by plaintiff were either gratuitous or incidental to an illegal relationship.

Norris- the plaintiff had worked decedent's farm, worked the soil, and harvested and marketed the produce. Plaintiff, working primarily without the decedent's aid, and drove the produce to various markets. She handled all finances and deposited them in the couple's joint banking account. Finally, the evidence showed that the decedent, an alcoholic, depended almost entirely on plaintiff's work in the produce business and as well her care of him while he was ill.
Issue: Whether public policy forbids the recovery by a plaintiff partner to an unmarried but cohabitating or relationship, from the other partners estate, for services rendered to or benefits conferred upon the other partner through the plaintiffs work in the operation of a joint business when the business proceeds were utilized to enrich the estate of the diseased

partner.
Court’s Decision: A jury found for Suggs, and the trial judge denied the defendant's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Reasoning: The defendant appealed, arguing on public policy grounds that because Suggs and Norris were illegally cohabiting, Suggs was not entitled to compensation under a quantum meruit theory, nor was the agreement Suggs alleged existed enforceable. The North Carolina Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision, holding that agreements regarding finances and property of unmarried but cohabiting couples are enforceable because sexual services or promises for sexual services do not constitute consideration for the agreements.
Rule of Law: Agreement regarding finances and property of an unmarried but cohabitating couple, whether express or implied are enforceable as long as sexual services or promises thereof do not provide the consideration for such agreement.