Care Giving Is Spouse’s Duty, Justices Rule

The state Supreme Court has ruled that a Contra Costa County woman who promised to take care of her ill husband was only doing her duty and is not entitled to part of his property.

The court denied a new hearing sought by the woman, who said she was promised a substantial share her husband’s multimillion-dollar estate if she took personal care of him during his illness.

A state appeals court ruled against her in January, relying on court decisions from 1937 and 1941 that said a wife was obliged by marriage to provide nursing care to an ill husband. Those rulings, which now apply equally to both spouses, mean the wife was promising only what she was already obliged to do, the court said.

The dissenter on the appellate panel and the woman’s lawyers argued that the rulings were based on outmoded concepts of marital and gender relations and ignored modern economic realities.

Maria Lawless, a lawyer for the widow, said Thursday that the court’s action would particularly affect spouses in second marriages who, like her client, sign prenuptial agreements waiving their legal property rights but later are urged to provide care in exchange for a share of the property.

But Bryce Anderson, a lawyer for the daughter who inherited the bulk of the estate, said the rulings served to keep the courts out of countless disputes over purported contracts between spouses.

The high court’s decision to deny a hearing makes the appellate ruling binding on all trial courts statewide.

The suit was filed by Hildegard Borelli to enforce alleged promises by her husband, Michael Borelli of Kensington, who died in January, 1989.

Her suit said her husband, after suffering a stroke in August, 1988, repeatedly told her he wanted to live at home rather than in a nursing home even if it meant round-the-clock care. She said he promised to leave her a long list of properties, which Lawless valued at $1 million or more, if she would take personal care of him for the rest of his illness.

She said she kept her promise, but his will left her only $100,000 and his share of their home, leaving the rest of his estate to a daughter from a previous marriage.

Superior Court Judge Judith Sanders dismissed Hildegard Borelli’s suit and was upheld in a 2-1 decision of the 1st District Court of Appeal. The opinion by Justice James Perley said the legal duties of marriage include mutual personal care, making an additional promise of care meaningless.

“Even if few things are left that cannot command a price, marital support remains one of them,” Perley wrote.