Lee v. Choi

The trial court erred in denying the defendants' motion for a directed verdict on a breach of contract claim because the agreement's provision for the immediate payment to the plaintiff of $450K for work he already completed was unenforceable as lacking in consideration.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a jury trial in this dispute involving alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, both parties appeal. In Case No. A13A0312, Ki Tae Lee, individually and as executor of the estate of her deceased husband, John Blackwell, hereinafter “the Blackwells” appeals arguing that a contract considered by the jury was unenforceable, and that the trial court erred in failing to give requested jury instructions. In Case No. A13A0313, Se Ill Choi appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on the Blackwells’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty and in entering two separate judgments. For the following reasons, we reverse in Case No. A13A0312 and affirm in Case No. A13A0313.

Construed in favor of the verdict, the record reveals that in 1996, John Blackwell was seriously injured in an automobile accident. Blackwell’s wife was Korean and spoke little English, and needed assistance communicating with Blackwell’s doctors. In late 1996 or early 1997, the Blackwells hired Choi as an interpreter. In his testimony, Choi explained that the wife needed help to “establish her household” and that she asked him to help her take care of Blackwell. Choi moved into the Blackwell home, and while he did not receive pay, the Blackwells provided him with a bedroom and an office, food, a computer and cell phone, health insurance, and a car. The Blackwells told him he “will be taken care of, no need to worry about jobs; we will be taking care of you.”

Lee v. Choi

The trial court erred in denying the defendants' motion for a directed verdict on a breach of contract claim because the agreement's provision for the immediate payment to the plaintiff of $450K for work he already completed was unenforceable as lacking in consideration.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report