Crooke v. Gilden, s. S91A1190
| Decision Date | 19 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | Nos. S91A1190,S91X1191,s. S91A1190 |
| Citation | 414 S.E.2d 645,262 Ga. 122 |
| Parties | CROOKE v. GILDEN. GILDEN v. CROOKE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
R. Scott Tobin, Michael S. Rosenthal, Weinstein, Rosenthal, Tobin & Caldwell, Atlanta, for Crooke.
David H. Flint, Debra A. Wilson, Schreeder, Wheeler & Flint, Atlanta, for Gilden.
M.P. Schildemeyer, Atlanta, for amicus curiae appellee.
Ruth E. Harlow, American Civil Liberties Union, Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, New York City, for amicus curiae appellant.
Sandra E. Lundy, Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, Boston, Mass., Paula L. Ettelbrick, Lambda Legal Defense and Educ. Fund, New York City, Maria Gil de Lamadrid, National Center for Lesbian Rights, San Francisco, Cal.
William B. Rubenstein, American Civil Liberties Union, Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, New York City, Julie I. Edelson, Atlanta.
Gilden brought this action for specific performance of a contract and equitable partition of real estate. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Gilden's motion for summary judgment as to her claim for equitable partition. The trial court granted Crooke's motion for summary judgment in the action for specific performance on the ground that the agreement was void because an "illegal and immoral" relationship between the parties constituted an implicit part of the consideration for the contract. The parties filed cross appeals.
1. We find no error in the trial court's order allowing Gilden to proceed with the equitable partition of the real estate pursuant to OCGA § 44-6-160, et seq. We therefore affirm the judgment in case No. S91A1190.
2. The contract that Gilden sought to have specifically performed is an integrated, written document which states, "This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement between the partners with regard to the subject matter hereof." It further recites that the contract is entered into "in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein." The promises contained in the contract are the mutual contribution toward improvement of the real estate and sharing of expenses and assets. The contract as written contains sufficient legal consideration. The parol evidence rule bars any attempt to contradict, vary or supplement the consideration stated in an integrated contract. See OCGA § 13-2-2; J. Calamari & J. Perillo, Contracts, Ch. 4, (1970).
Crooke contends, however, that parol evidence showing an illegal and immoral relationship between the parties is admissible under OCGA § 24-6-8 and demonstrates that this contract is void under OCGA § 13-8-1 which states, "A contract to do an immoral or illegal thing is void." We cannot agree that the contract is void on this ground. Nothing in the contract casts upon either of the parties the responsibility to perform any illegal activity. Further, the parol evidence admitted demonstrates that the alleged illegal activity was at most incidental to the contract rather than required by it. See Shannondoah, Inc. v. Smith, 140 Ga.App. 200, 230 S.E.2d 351 (1976).
In sum, we conclude that the contract before the court is supported by legal consideration. The promises contained in the contract are also legal. Enforcement of those promises does not contravene OCGA § 13-8-1. We therefore reverse the judgment in case No. S91X1191.
Judgment affirmed in S91A1190.
All the Justices concur.
Judgment reversed in S91X1191.
All the Justices concur, except SEARS-COLLINS, J., who concurs in judgment only; and BELL, J., who dissents.
I respectfully dissent to this Court's reversal of the judgment in S91A1191, because I disagree with the conclusion of the majority that "the parol evidence admitted demonstrates that the alleged illegal activity was at most incidental to the contract rather than required by it." 262 Ga. at 123, 414 S.E.2d at 646.
There was undisputed testimony from Crooke that before and at the time the contract was signed, Crooke intended to engage in the alleged illegal activity with Gilden, and that but for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephens v. Trust for Public Land
...Agreement cannot impose any contractual obligations. As such, the Sale Agreement is not void for illegality. See Crooke v. Gilden, 262 Ga. 122, 414 S.E.2d 645, 646 (1992) (upholding contract against illegality challenge where "[n]othing in the contract casts upon either of parties the respo......
-
City of Atlanta v. McKinney
...of city residents and employees who have entered into written agreements similar to the one that this court upheld in Crooke v. Gilden, 262 Ga. 122, 414 S.E.2d 645 (1992), and grants domestic partners visitation rights to city jails. The ordinance states that it does not attempt to alter st......
-
Abrams v. Massell
...rule bars any attempt to contradict, vary or supplement the consideration stated in an integrated contract." Crooke v. Gilden, 262 Ga. 122(2), 414 S.E.2d 645 (1992). Although parol evidence is admissible under OCGA § 24-6-8 to demonstrate that a contract is nevertheless void as against publ......
-
Cmty. & S. Bank v. Clear Creek Props.
...verdict as to Haygood's defense of illegality. See R.R.R. Ltd. Partnership, 264 Ga. at 495–496(2), 448 S.E.2d 211 ; Crooke v. Gilden, 262 Ga. 122, 123(2), 414 S.E.2d 645 (1992) ; Smith v. Saulsbury, 286 Ga.App. 322, 323 –324(1)(b), 649 S.E.2d 344 (2007) ; Douglas v. Bigley, 278 Ga.App. 117,......
-
Wills, Trusts, Guardianships, and Fiduciary Administration - Mary F. Radford
...Still, 176 Ga. App. 65, 335 S.E.2d 168 (1985). 92. Abrams, 262 Ga. App. at 767, 586 S.E.2d at 440. 93. Id. 94. Id., 586 S.E.2d at 441. 95. 262 Ga. 122, 414 S.E.2d 645 (1992). 96. Abrams, 262 Ga. App. at 767, 586 S.E.2d at 441 (citing Crooke v. Gilden, 262 Ga. 122, 414 S.E.2d 645 (1992)). 97......
-
§ 1.02 Disputes Between Cohabitants
...Levy, 411 So.2d 253 (Fla. 1982); Posik v. Layton, 695 So.2d 759, 23 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1296 (Fla. App. 1997). Georgia: Crooke v. Gilden, 262 Ga. 122, 414 S.E.2d 645 (1992). Hawaii: Artiss v. Artiss, 8 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1085 (Haw. 1982). Idaho: Curtis v. Curtis, 14 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1322 (......
-
Domestic partnership, civil unions, or marriage: one size does not fit all.
...racial classifications violated the Fourteenth Amendment). (2) 557 P.2d 106 (Cal. 1976). (3) Id. at 110. (4) See, e.g., Crooke v. Gilden, 414 S.E.2d 645, 646 (Ga. 1992) (refusing to invalidate a contract between former partners on the ground that the relationship between them was illegal an......