Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Seals: Drops the bomb

Note: This is not legal advice, just a guess as to what the court might do. Talk to your own lawyer before making any decisions related to the Seals-Reynolds litigation.

The long-awaited complaint impacted. SealsReynolds complete complaint.

Problems: For an oral contract to be enforceable above $500, there's going to have to be some pattern of relationship that's been documented. Indeed, at 5 Seals alleges there was a joint venture.

Remains to be seen which governing law would apply to the contract, given the suit is filed in Los Angeles, but the property is believed to be in a different state.
[As a side note, Florida property is almost impossible to take out of bankruptcy and was the reason OJ Simpson and CEOs like to live in Florida -- if they lose a civil lawsuit, their home is not attachable.]

At 6 is the allegation that the contract was affirmed in California, but at 5 the property in question is asserted to be located in Florida.

It's interesting to compare the complaint against Reynolds against the complaint against Dylan.Ref


1. Enforceability

Putting aside the governing law, if we focus solely on the Florida ... there's one problem -- Posik v Layton [695 So 2n 759, Fl Dist Crt App 1997] found the oral contract not enforceable. Ref

2. Consideration

In re California ... Marvin Defenses indicate the there's an issue with the relationship.

Meretricious consideration: Under Marvin, a contract between unmarried persons is invalid "if sexual acts form an inseparable part of the consideration for the agreement." Marvin, supra, 18 Cal.3d at 672 Ref

Unless there's something unusual in this case that hasn't been presented, I fail to understand what's going to keep Seals-complaint from getting dismissed.

Let's assume one or more of the elements fails, the court may choose to focus solely on the most simple one to throw out, rather than dive into the consideration issue. It's possible the court could say "because the contract was oral, it is not enforceable; therefore we need not consider the other factors and issues raised."

She may wish she had taken the $1M.