In re Estate of Spitz-Oose: The Risk of Oral Promises in Estate Disputes

In re Estate of Spitz-Oose: The Risk of Oral Promises in Estate Disputes

Can you enforce a promise someone made, especially if they’ve passed away and never wrote it down? That was the issue in in re Estate of Spitz-Oose, where a son claimed, his late mother had promised to leave him real estate in exchange for years of unpaid work.

Brian Spitz alleged that his mother promised him a property if he worked for a family business without pay. In 2018, she signed a will leaving him the property. But in 2019, she executed a new will that excluded him entirely. She later sold the property and passed away. Brian sued her estate for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The trial court rejected his claims, finding: No clear and convincing evidence of an enforceable oral agreement; Brian failed to meet the burden of proof under the Dead Man’s Act, which applies to oral promises by a deceased person; The claim was also barred by the statute of frauds, which requires written agreements for real estate.

The Appellate Division affirmed, emphasizing: Brian’s own attorney agreed to the “clear and convincing” standard at trial; Oral promises of real estate are unenforceable under N.J.S.A. § 25:1-13;

The Importance of a Written Agreement for Promises in Estate Disputes

Spitz-Oose is a textbook example of why oral promises are risky, especially when tied to inheritance or real estate. If there’s no writing, no contract, and no corroboration, courts won’t enforce it.