L.L.+c.+E.J.

- Dr J signed a mandate by which his daughter (or son, if she couldn't) would be his mandatory in case he became inept. - While still able, Dr J notarized a deed leaving $200/week to Mrs. L, his companion for 30 years, until his or her death (whichever happened first). He later notarized a deed increasing this sum to $300/week. - Dr J became inept in 2003, and the daughter has never paid Mrs. L - Dr J and L never lived together but saw each other all the time. L is mentioned as Dr J's "spouse" in Dr J's brother's death notice in the paper. Their correspondence together shows they were a couple. Dr J is 80 and Mrs. L is 70 - Mrs. L is claiming for the money she is owed retroactively. She wants the mandatory transfered from the daughter to the son. - The daughter claims the payment should not be made since the deed would be a donation of future goods which is not allowed anywhere but in a will and marriage contract (arts. 1818, 1819 CCQ)
 * Facts:**


 * Issue:** Should L be paid the weekly sum? ie: Was the modification of the mandate to include such a weekly sum valid?
 * Held:** Yes, even retroactively.

- There is no question that Dr J can afford these payments, and that none of his children are in need of money. - It is true that one cannot donate future goods outside a will and marriage contract. - However, this is not a donation but rather an innominate support obligation. - De facto spouses can use private law rules to subject themselves to rules of family patrimony. De facto spouses can recognize reciprocally or unilaterally spousal support. "Married and civil union spouses as well as parents owe each other a duty of support" does not mean that de facto spouses //can't// owe each other such a duty. - For 30 years, Dr J supported L. There is a **natural obligation** of support between them. The regular payments might even have established a contractual engagement for the future, absent a change in situation. - The cause of the contract to modify the mandate was support for Dr J's companion. Gifts between spouses are not given in cash and periodically. Dr J may have qualified the payments as a gift (to make L feel better), but they were really spousal support. - The daughter really stresses that Dr J and L were never married so are not //de facto spouses// but that doesn't matter.Even if they are not married, nothing prevented Dr J from creating a natural obligation of support towards L. - The execution of a natural obligation can be the cause of a civil obligation. The cause here is not against public order. - The object of the contract is an innominate contract and not a donation. This is not prohibited (1411 CCQ). - The changes to the mandate are valid and the daughter must pay L retroactively, and for the future.
 * Reasoning:**

Interesting paragraph that Leckey mentioned in class: "//En fait, Mme L et Dr J ont été conjoints de fait même s'ils n'ont pas fait vie commune, comme on voit des couples, même mariés, avoir entre eux un tel arrangement."// (cb552)