I spent a chunk of my weekend reading for contracts. The contracts cases are interesting they contain plot twists equal to Law & Order and Maury.
For example, this short case was assigned:
Kirksey v. Kirksey
(Ala. 1845)
The plaintiff was the wife of defendant’s brother, but had for some time been a widow, and had several (about 9) children. In 1840, the plaintiff resided on public land, under a contract of lease, she had held over, and was comfortably settled, and would have attempted to secure the land she lived on. The defendant resided in Talladega county, some sixty, or seventy miles off. On the 10th October, 1840, he wrote to her the following letter:
“Dear Sister Antillico–Much to my mortification, I heard, that brother Henry was dead, and one of his children. I know that your situation is one of grief, and difficult…
* * *
I do not know whether you have a preference on the place you live on, or not. If you had, I would advise you to obtain your preference, and sell the land and quit the country, as I understand it is very unhealthy, and I know society is very bad. If you will come down and see me, I will let you have a place to raise your family, and I have more open land than I can tend; and on the account of your situation, and that of your family, I feel like I want you and the children to do well.”
Within a month or two after the receipt of this letter, the plaintiff abandoned her possession, without disposing of it, and removed with her family, to the residence of the defendant, who put her in comfortable houses, and gave her land to cultivate for two years, at the end of which time he notified her to remove, and put her in a house, not comfortable, in the woods, which he afterwards required her to leave.
——–
What a jerk, right?
And the court told the poor widow that she was out of luck. Gasp.
I was confused. This seemed horribly unfair. Some of the notes after the case pointed me towards a Georgetown Law review article that examined the history of the Kirksey case. I read the article and learned that the story is far more complicated and colorful than what’s in the casebook…
It turns out that BOTH of the Kirkseys were involved in shady real estate transactions.
At the time, the Alabama government was selling 160 acres of land to squatters at $1.25 an acre. The defendant already owned a huge plantation so he was ineligible for the discounted rate. He convinced widow Kirksey, his sister in law, to act as a placeholder for him so he could get the land on the sly.
These placeholder deals were common but illegal. The widow objected to being shoved off the land because she wanted the title for herself.
So basically, the “poor widow” moved on the land as part of a scheme to defraud the government. Widow Kirksey then tried to throw her coconspirator under the bus, and failed.
Hm.
Another case, also part of the contracts reading, involved a child custody suit. A man (Wright) assumed parental responsibility for his girlfriend’s son. Wright knew he wasn’t the father, but he put his name on the child’s birth certificate and played dad.
Wright and the girl split up. She wants child support. He pulls a Maury classic: “THAT AINT MY KID!”
Court says:
Wright’s commitment to Newman (the girlfriend) to assume the obligations of fatherhood as regards her son are enforceable. Specifically, it is abundantly clear that Wright should have known that Newman would rely upon his promise, especially after he undertook for ten years to fulfill the obligations of fatherhood. In this regard, it could hardly have escaped Wright’s notice that Newman refrained from seeking to identify and obtain support from the child’s biological father while Wright was fulfilling his commitment to her. Moreover, Newman did in fact rely upon Wright’s promise, to her detriment when, ten years after he undertook the obligations of fatherhood, Wright reneged on his promise.
Trying to disown a kid after 10 years. What a jerk right?
Well, actually the dissenting opinion had an interesting little nugget of information:
In fact, Wright contends, and Newman does not refute, that Newman severed the relationship and all ties with Wright when the child was approximately three years old. For approximately the next five years, until the child was eight, Newman and Wright did not communicate. Only for the past two years has Wright visited with the child. Importantly, Wright contends that during the past seven years he did not support the child.
What the hey? You don’t kick your man out and then demand that he support another man’s child 7 years later.
The majority opinion made it seem like Wright played father for a decade and then tried to dip. Turns out, Wright was booted out early on, hasn’t supported the kid since he got the boot, AND the mother, “has not alleged, nor does the record reveal, that she does not know the identity of the natural father, nor does she show that the natural father is dead or unable to be found.”
Not even Maury would let this one fly.
Go bother your real baby’s daddy.
