Municipality’s Legal Memorandum Looks Hinky. Show Us the Contract!
Well, the fine folks in The Mudflats’ Legal Department have been working overtime. We like the Mudflats’ Legal Department. A LOT. They’re a savvy bunch, as you will soon see.
You probably all remember the recent situation in which the stunned citizens of Anchorage who’d been told for many months now that the city couldn’t even afford a stick of gum, and had to lay off municipal workers, cut library hours, and arts funding, and firefighters and all sorts of things, suddenly discovered they were an additional $193,000 short of what they thought. Why? Because apparently long ago, the city fancied itself the Sugar Daddy/Insurance Company of former Mayor George Sullivan (father of current Mayor Dan Sullivan), and decided they’d let him have a “life insurance policy” the huge payout of which would come right out of the city coffers. And then the Assembly was asked to vote on paying out the cash without knowing that the trustee was the current Mayor Sullivan, and after being told it was a contractual obligation. Sound a little fishy? Well it is. [CLICK here for fishiness]
But as far as the payout went, they had no choice, we were told. There was a contract. What could they do? Legally, even if they disagreed with the idea of paying that huge sum of money to a trust in which the mayor himself is the trustee, and even though the Mayor as the trustee got to sign the actual check that went to his family from the Municipality, they just had no choice. The law is the law, and a contract is a contract.
Tonight at the Assembly Meeting fondly known as Tuesday Night at the Fights, Assemblywoman Harriet Drummond is proposing that this whole big fishy deal be investigated by someone who doesn’t actually work for the Municipality. Lingering questions remain, primarily because this “contract” of which Municipal Attorney Dennis Wheeler speaks has never actually been seen, and likely does not exist at all. Drummond proposed this investigation right away after the incident came to light. But between then and now, the Municipality of Anchorage’s Department of Law has issued a memorandum with an analysis of the situation. And can you believe it? Their analysis doesn’t find anything wrong at all. Whew! The gullible will be relieved. [CLICK to read the memorandum]
But Mudflats Legal is not so easily convinced. Here’s the result of their analysis:
*************************************
By Mudflatter ‘Legal Eagle’
The MOA Dept. of Law’s memorandum analyzing the insurance payout is high flawed, and conclusory at best. It ignores several important legal principles, and conflates lines of contract law. It’s clear that it was written to support Dennis Wheeler’s contention that there was an enforceable contract, without a thorough analysis of Alaska law.
As an initial matter, the Municipality has still not produced any sort of written contract. The best that the Mayor can hope for now is that there is an implied contract based on the behavior of MOA and the Sullivans over the years. The MOA memorandum assumes that there is an implied contract (without setting out the fundamentals of contract law), and then later states that the MOA intended to give the Sullivans a gift, and then that this gift can be enforced by promissory estoppel. I wholeheartedly disagree with these conclusions.
Basic Contract Law
There is NO contract, implied or otherwise. Under Alaska law, “the formation of a valid contract requires an offer encompassing all essential terms, unequivocal acceptance by the offeree, consideration, and an intent to be bound.” Davis v. Dykman, 938 P.2d 1002, 1006 (Alaska 1997)(emphasis added). The memorandum ignores the definition of a contract provided by the Alaska Supreme Court, instead relying on a generalized treatise for a vague description of a contract (a contract is “a promise for which the law provides a remedy and in some way recognizes as a duty.”). Conveniently, this definition ignores the 4 basic factors required under Alaska law: offer, acceptance, consideration, and intent to be bound.Offer: The memorandum assumes that the resolution of 1982 sufficed as an offer. This is arguable at best; I doubt that the terms of the resolution are sufficiently detailed so as to constitute an offer encompassing all essential terms. The resolution is less than one page in length in relevant part and doesn’t provide any specific terms for the so-called contract, let alone “all of the essential terms.” Notably, under the Davis case, an agreement is unenforceable if its terms are not reasonably certain.
Acceptance: There is no documentation of an acceptance on the part of former Mayor Sullivan; acceptance can likely be inferred from his performance of the “contract,” i.e., paying the premiums.
Consideration: No consideration was provided by former Mayor Sullivan, which the memorandum readily admits. Past performance cannot suffice as consideration for a contract. The memorandum deals with this reality by now saying that the offer on the part of MOA was a gratuitous promise or a gift. Under basic principles of contract law, gratuitous promises are unenforceable. Even if there had been a valid offer, the notion that there was a contract must fail as a matter of law for lack of consideration.
Intent to Be Bound: both parties must evince an intent to be bound in order to form a contract. Here, it is undeniable that the MOA intended to be bound to provide life insurance to former Mayor Sullivan, and that he intended to take advantage of that life insurance. However, there was a mistake in the formation of the contract: both parties assumed that they were being bound to life insurance provided by Aetna, not by the proceeds being paid out by the MOA. Because both MOA and former Mayor Sullivan were mistaken as to the basic premise under which the “contract” was supposedly formed, there was no “meeting of the minds,” and the contract cannot be enforced. Under Alaska law, courts will not enforce a contract if there was a mutual “…mistake at the time of contracting as to a basic assumption on which the contract was made; the mistake had a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances, and the party seeking relief did not bear the risk of the mistake.” State v. Carpenter, 869 P.2d 1181 (Alaska 1994)(internal citations omitted). There is perhaps an argument that the MOA’s later actions ratified the contract, by continuing to accept premium payments even after it knew that Aetna would not cover the obligation. However, even if this mistake in the formation is effectively ratified, this still does not compensate for the lack of consideration described above.
Illegal Purpose
Another basic principle of contract law is that a contract that has an illegal purpose is void (as opposed to voidable, such as a contract entered into by a minor). The memorandum states that the MOA was not acting as an insurer in this “contract;” this may have been true in 1982, when MOA assumed that the premiums would be paid to Aetna, but when the proceeds were paid in 2010, the MOA certainly was acting as an insurer. Alaska law is clear on this subject: “A person may not act as an insurer and an insurer may not transact insurance in this state except as authorized by a subsisting certificate of authority issued to it by the director…” AS 21.09.010. A contract that has an illegal purpose cannot be enforced under Alaska law. Hemmen v. State, 710 P.2d 1001, 1003 (Alaska 1985)(“We have no power, either in law or in equity, to enforce an agreement which directly contravenes a legislative enactment.”). The memorandum’s assumption that a court would enforce this supposed contract against the MOA completely ignores the fact that by doing so, the court would be enforcing an illegal end — the MOA acting as an insurer without a certificate of authority — and that the court would have NO authority to do such a thing.Promissory Estoppel
Under Alaska law, promissory estoppel is only used to enforce contract-like promises that have been made unenforceable by technical defects or defenses. Here, there was no promise — the lack of consideration, mutual mistake and illegal purpose are more than technical defects or defenses. Simply put, these three things completely defeat the contract: there is NO contract. Without a contract, there is no equitable relief under promissory estoppel. As a side note, it is interesting that the memorandum assumes that “justice” would require the full payment of $193,000; it has been stated repeatedly that former Mayor Sullivan could not have qualified for a life insurance policy at the rate which he paid the MOA. I can see no basis under which a court would find that it was “just” that the taxpayers of Anchorage would be on the hook for an insurance payout for a man who never would have qualified for insurance at anything near those rates.At best, the resolution by the Commission in 1982 can be construed as a gift. This gift, or gratuitous promise by the Assembly, is NOT enforceable by the courts. The Sullivans would be entitled to the return of their premium payments in the amount of $19,662.84, plus a reasonable rate of interest. As explained above, there was no contract due to lack of consideration, mutual mistake, and illegal purpose. It is clear that MOA never should have authorized the payout of the monies to the Sullivans. The issue now is how the MOA can possibly get that money back.
*****************************
For even more analysis, and questions, click HERE to read Henkimaa’s take. Then you’ll be all set for Tuesday Night at the Fights! >DING!<
Don’t forget to contact your Assembly Member(s) and ask them to vote in favor of the independent investigation.
Just why in the f^*k can’t the contract and sworn affadavits concerning verbal agreements be produced for public perusal ?!?! Come on “Dandy Don”. Dang boy , clear this s^*t up.
There ya go, sitin’ all that elitist mumbo jumbo again. Contract, smontract.
Wink ;-0
Hot Diggity Dog!!!!! We pups got a Legal Beagle?
sending a little sumpthin’ your way right now AKM!
That is a great post and i will agree with every word soon as you ‘splain it all to me. i understand that the $193,000 paid to ‘Dan da Man’ is based on a bogus claim and no contract is in evidence. is that right?
Srsly, one would hope that any reasonable person would have been too embarrassed to take the money. That Sullivan took it with one hand while making draconian budget cuts with the other is absolutely stunning.
Has anyone taken a poll of Anchorage residents on this?
It’s hard to believe that anyone would vote him in as dog catcher.
I agree it is stunning, but then again we’re talking about a man who took paychecks for the time between the election and when he assumed office. How can a “mayor” draw a salary before he is sworn in as mayor?
What is interesting to me is that Sullivan and his gang believe the Assembly should have known all along about this “obligation,” but somehow should have had no idea that the municipality’s finances were hit during the financial meltdown of 2008 like everyone else’s in the world.
Great post. I’m not an attorney, but was educated and certified as a paralegal and worked in the field for 25 years. I read and commented on Mel’s blog (she’s neat!) several times and found this situation very interesting. Your Legal Eagle, in my mind, did a fantastic job on this. It’s well written, easy to read and understand, and covers all the points. My thoughts all along has been that MOA acted too quickly (and in a smelly manner) in issuing that check without getting an opionion from an unbiased attorney experienced in contract law.
By the way, I like the “new look.” You and your assistants did good!
@ Ratfish, I think the difference is that it is a basic principal of sullylaw that anything Mark Begich does or did must be wrong and anything Sullivan does is beyond reproach. When you start from that position, it is clear that the Assembly was hoodwinked when no one told them the country was facing a financial crisis, but that same Assembly was fully aware of all the details in this insurance plan for many years.
KarenMarie,
I don’t think Mayor Dan knows what embarrassed is (nor do most politicians I’m afraid). Anyone who seems proud of that photo we see so frequently of him posing with the young Republican women has no clue of appropriate behavior. Hopefully the citizen’s can force him to give the money back, as he surely is in politics not for the opportunity to serve, but rather for the opportunity to enrich himself.
it bothers me that we keep seeing the same families recycling their offspring into politics over and over again. i know that families have done this since the late 19th century until now. i know it is not illegal but somehow it smacks of oligarchy and that makes me nervous. i realize that families like the Kennedys and the Roosevelts have provided excellent service to our nation but when i look at families such as the Sullivans, the Murkowskys and the Cheneys it is though we will never see the end of their evil presence in our national discourse.it is a shame really.
Don’t forget to mention the Bushes in that thought; it sounds like the Republicans are seriously looking at getting Jeb Bush to run for President in 2012 because their polls don’t show that their base really like any of the current frontrunners.
OMG!!! who but me would or could forget the Bush family? good grief.
Oy, vey!
and ptui, ptui, ptui, also, too.
That Bush Clan/Dynasty since Prescott, they all give me the heebie-jeebies.
*shudder*
At the last Assembly meeting, the Assembly members chose to refer Drummond’s resolution to the Ethics Board, calling it an ethics matter. The Ethics Chair, in turn, told Drummond that they don’t know what to do with it. Drummond should bring the SAME resolution back to the assembly and ask them to fund the outside counsel as requested. No substitute resolutions. The legal questions remain. Without an attorney willing to put his or her name to this fine piece of work, it is doubtful it will have any weight at tonight’s meeting.
metanoia2k — The Assembly’s decision on March 23 was not to refer Drummond’s resolution to the Ethics Board (though that might have been discussed): it was to table it until tonight’s meeting. Drummond’s resolution is on tonight’s Assembly agenda at item 11.B under Old Business.
Call and/or write your Assembly member(s) & tell them to pass the resolution — then there will be an independent investigation.
Does Alaska have a Statute of Frauds? Those usaully require a written contract for any obligation that would last longer than 1 year. That would be an additional reason to void the so called “contract”.
Yes, I looked into this a while back, and yes, there is a Statute of Frauds, and it would apply IF THERE WAS AN ACTUAL CONTRACT. But here (and I think that’s what Legal Eagle is really getting at), we probably don’t have a valid contract, whether in writing or not) but a promise (See my comment below).
I just double checked, and the Statute of Frauds also applies to promises and undertakings. But likely the MOA solicitor is treating the resolution (written) as the promise.
Y’know, this pretty much demonstrates why I think the state capital should stay safely put in Juneau.
The fact that the Anchorage voters elected this bagman is sufficient all in itself to cast serious doubt on the wisdom of letting the state capitol be anywhere within driving distance of Anchorage. The smart and educated and honest people there are just plain outgunned by the fools. Literally, also, too.
Actually in Juneau this never even would have been uncovered. Juneau is an insular, corrupt place that has been made on the art of looking the other way. Move the capital to where people can more easily watch and pay attention. With it tucked away in Juneau, legislators can do anything they want. No one knows who they are having dinner with or where they’re staying or what they are doing; in Anchorage they can’t hide from the populace.
Really? Do you think that if the Capital had been in Anchorage and Bill Allen had been able to bribe legislators from his own home or office the FBI ever would have been able to get a warrent to set up cameras to catch him? Really?
RUH-ROH!!!
I want an investigation into Mayor Dan Sullivan’s entire administration!
Rather than get down to work when he was sworn in, he spent an inordinate amount of time attacking Senator Begich; in fact, it looks to me like he and his cronies have ginned up an economic crisis where none existed!
These rat-bastards are the biggest PROJECTORS in history-in fact, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is going to have to add a category to accomodate their bullcrap! They accused Begich of covering up our financial health while Sullivan and Co. make it look worse than it is; Sully talks all “family values” yet he is inappropriate with the party planner and shares drinks with an employee at his bar and lets her drive the wrong way down Minnesota and have a head-on collision!
And now this! He has basically stolen $174,000 ($193K-$19k in premiums) from the MOA!
Thanks for staying on this AKM!!!
As Mark Twain said, “It were not best that we should all think alike; it is difference of opinion that makes horse races.” …… The Sullivan arrangement is not an easy call. There clearly was consideration paid – the premiums. Take a different example. Grandpa has a beautiful 1963 Corvette Sting Ray in perfect condition. Grandpa really likes 6-year-old Grandson Sully. He tells Sully that if he pays Grandpa one dollar a week until he’s sixteen, Sully can have the car. For ten years, Sully makes the payments every week. Grandpa, however, decides he’d rather give the car to someone else. On his sixteenth birthday, Sully walks in and, having paid Grandpa about $500 over the years, demands the $50,000 car. …. Yes, there was an offer, acceptance and consideration paid. I’ll leave it to legal types to tell us if Sully gets the car. The problem I see with the Sullivan “insurance” is not consideration, its the vagueness of it all. Isn’t that what the statute of frauds addresses? I seem to recall that the statute of frauds, adopted in Alaska as AS 09.25.010, requires that certain types of contracts be in writing.
Yes, the Statute of Frauds requires insurance contracts and promises to be in writing. I think that the MOA solicitor is assuming that the resolution (which was in writing) constitutes the promise. http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/STATUTES/Title09/Chapter25/Section010.htm
One question – if there is no way to have these funds returned through action of the Assembly, can we as citizens take this issue to court? Let’s get tough.
Just start deducting his salary!
I for the most part agree with Legal Eagle’s analysis; however, there may be a problem with saying, “Here, there was no promise” and “Without a contract, there is no equitable relief under promissory estoppel.”
The entire purpose of promissory estoppel is to allow promises that do not legally amount to contracts to be enforced nonetheless. Promises on their own are legally unenforceable. But equity looks past the unenforceability of the promise and asks whether it was nonetheless a promise that was intended to be acted upon by the promisor, and was relied upon to the detriment of the promisee. Equity is the concept that keeps the strict application of the law from working an injustice.
For instance, could/ would Mr. Sullivan, had he known he was not eligible to remain on the Aetna plan, put the equivalent amount of money into some other form of investment or life insurance policy? Likely, though probably not with the same ROI. Did he lose that opportunity by relying on the City’s promise? Probably.
We still have the flaw that the promise was unfulfillable according to the terms under which it was made. Why was the legal department not involved every step of the way, particularly when this was such a unique decision? There were opportunities to fix the situation along the way, and no one, including the City Solicitor Wheeler, seems to have even seen it as more than an administrative inconvenience.
The money should never have been paid out until an internal administrative investigation was completed (including interviewing former employees) and the facts found submitted for an independent legal analysis. There are simply too many unanswered questions.
the money is gone now. Alaskans won’t see a dime back i am thinking. sooner or later the lower 48 going to send troops to come clean out that nest of vipers up there.
Maybe Alaskans can recoup their money….. just charge a fee for Alaskans to tar and feather Sullivan.
Hey, count me in for $5 if that buys 4 feathers and a smidgin of tar.
Good points, problem child
“For instance, could/ would Mr. Sullivan, had he known he was not eligible to remain on the Aetna plan, put the equivalent amount of money into some other form of investment or life insurance policy?” – problemchild
If I remember correctly, Pop Sullivan *knew* he wasn’t eligible **as a NON-employee** for ‘regular’ MOA insurance [and, further, he *knew* the premiums, with his health history, would've been prohibitive had he sought (continuing) coverage as a 'private' citizen converting the Aetna policy *from* what it had been/was under the MOA umbrella]. That was the whole reason he/MOA explored the option of keeping him ‘on the rolls’ (*after* he’d drawn his last paycheck from the City) as part of the larger pool of [current] employees, in the first place.
It appears as if the person ‘advising’ him of his ‘continuing’ coverage was making grand assumptions that he *would* still be covered by Aetna and started the premium plan/payment, accordingly. When it was discovered Aetna would do no such thing [cover him *as if* he were an employee when he wasn't] the same person(s) –for whatever reason and/or under whatever pressure and/or through whatever incompetence — decided to put the monies collected as ‘premiums’ into a special ‘fund’/bracket…hoping, it’s my guess, that those paltry bits of anually-paid money would magically multiply into the necessary amount of $193K (the ‘life insurance’ payout) by the time of Pop Sullivan’s death. Those same person(s) *perpetuated* the ‘non-insurance insurance’ myth by ignoring (willfully or through ignorance) the glaring fact that there was *no such* policy/contract in place. Anywhere.
Yes, there’s a “Trust” [to/on which Son Sullivan is Trustee} but I don’t remember any discussion of said Trust that says (or even implies) that there’s ever been produced the actual ‘contract’/life insurance policy *upon which* the Trust was set up. Surely the lawyer(s) setting up the Trust would’ve required a hard-copy of the ‘basis’ for the instrument when they set it up? Surely the Trustee would’ve asked for a hard -copy of the ‘basis’ upon which the instrument was set up for his files?
Hmmmmm, can a Trust be set up on thin air? Can a person, knowing something is hinkey, just keep on keeping on *in hopes that* no one will notice the hinkey-ness of it, and that, when push comes to shove, that/those ‘no ones’ will just roll over and ‘forget’ that ‘the something’ is so out-and-out hinkey *from the get go* that it can only be laughed at upon ‘filing a ‘claim’/collecting on it? Oh, so many possibilities…so many questions about underlying motive(s) and greed and ‘gaming the system’. beth.
I hope Anchorage citizens insist on seeing the contract, or some paper trail. Their money has vanished into Mayor Dan’s pocket- although I think he insisted he didn’t benefit (yeah, right)- never to be seen again.
If the voters let this go, be prepared to be snookered again. And again.
As agent for the trust, is Sully getting paid a percentage of its value?
er how the accounting department coded those payments when they were received;
that would tell a lot relative to the city’s intent.
Will Mudflats legal eagles present these findings ti assemblywoman Drummond? Jeez, Mayor Sullivan should be brought up on fraud and embezzeling(sp) charges. What a tool.
Love the neener, neener neener. Now I’ll patiently wait for the chance to use it in conversation and really make an impression.
It is another arrrrgghhh moment for me. How could you sleep beside that slimeball. AKM, I won’t be offended if you delete my comment.
On rereading,I wasn’t accusing you of anything!!! I phrased that very badly.
I should have said anyone.
Irishgirl!!!!! oh my.
I just said it all wrong. Bubbles you are making me feel even worse. I was talking about Dan, the slimey man.
hah. Irishgirl… fuggedaboutit… we get your intent. When I goober a word or a thought I always smile just knowing I could never nor would ever compete with ‘wordsalad’ Palin or her ilk. (I do make great edible salads though, too, also!)
to alaskan at 9:43 — i don’t think location has much to do with corruption. bill allen bribed the legislators from a hotel room, and via private phone calls. your theory suggests the corruption happened out in the open and there was a citywide coverup involving citizens from all over the political spectrum. i just don’t see that.
So, is anyone going to be tweeting or live blogging the fights tonight?
I emailed my two Assembly members urging them to pass AR 2010-92, and the (shocking) reply from Dan Coffey was:
“I am a NO vote as it is an unnecessary waste of time and money.”
Hm. I have a slightly different opinion as to what is an unnecessary waste of money … $193,000 worth.
So what does that mean… that he has a better plan with which to get the money back? Do tell.
Heh. Coffey’s one of mine too. I wonder what he’ll answer me — I openly suggest a matter of backroom dealing & public corruption, with backup.
I sent mine to all the Assembly members, & put it on my blog. Sullygate: My letter to the Anchorage Assembly in support of Assembly Resolution AR 2010-92.
I’m wondering how long it will take for Dan Coffey to be working in the Sullivan administration.
I would rather pay $193k to the Sullivan clan for an insurance policy that doesn’t exist than $6k of taxpayer dollars for sole source contracts to Sullivan’s “Party Planner” or $10k + for pay taken before Sullivan became Mayor.
The Mudflats was prominently featured on KTUU news tonight (TV channel 2, Anchorage) including screen shots of this fine article by the Flats Legal Department. Should be up soon at
http://www.ktuu.com/
The Anchorage Assembly argued about the $193,000 payout to Sullivan. Sounds like they didn’t make any actual decision yet.
OT — no update today on search for lost snowmachiner near Talkeetna.
Correction — found an update on the search today. Search continues, no find so far.
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2010/04/13/local_news/doc4bc4d921db00c421742688.txt
I want to know when we can watch the street people piss on Dans shoes to keep them warm.
In the absence of a written contract, and given the incoherence of the contemporaneous records, it seems to me that there was neither “insurance” nor “gift” as a matter of law.
As a matter of equity, it’s possible that the Sullivan Trust is entitled to something more than return of its premiums. There are some possible problems, however:
1. Does Alaska, like many states, have a financial limit on matters of equity?
2. The entity making the “premium” payments must have realized that the sum of the premiums was only going to be a small fraction of the benefit, unless former-Mayor Sullivan lived to 500 or so. Therefore, whatever was going on was not “insurance”. Does this inevitable knowledge affect the determination of “equity”? Equity works both ways. Ripping off the MOA is not necessarily equitable.
More simply — ignoring law and equity — I’d suggest that residents of Anchorage perform the following thought experiment (hey, they worked for Einstein). Suppose that everything in this matter was exactly the same, except that the revered former mayor was, let’s say, Mayor Hussein. With appropriate adjustments of identity. So the “premium” payments were made by the Hussein Life Insurance Trust, and that was also the recipient of the $193,000 payoff, via its trustee Dan Hussein (I’m guessing here, the trustee could be Enid Schwartz).
So, one thought experiment question is “How would you feel about that?” Another, perhaps more significant, question is “How would Mayor Dan feel about that?”
The point of the exercise is that if you (or Sully) feel the same way about things when the protagonists are changed, it’s probably an equitable outcome. If not, not.
This post makes Wheeler look like some night school graduate who has no business being the city attorney. Oh wait, that’s why he’s not in private practice.
Why is Harriet the only voice of reason. Sullivan is a weasel and needs to be exposed!
The legal analysis is unfortunately flawed. Sullivan paid money to the MOA for insurance coverage. The payment of money is consideration in every court in the land, even Alaska. The contract may be attacked on other grounds but not this one.
This is incorrect because the payment of premiums did not induce the assembly to make the resolution. It’s different for an insurance company; that would be consideration because Aetna would have said, “OK, if you agree to be bound for X time and pay X amount each year of that time, then we agree to pay X if you die during that time.” both the agreeing to be paid and the agreeing to be bound to the contract are the consideration. Those agreements induced Aetna to offer term life insurance. In contrast, Mayor Sullivan did not agree to anything in order to have this benefit; the assembly offered it gratuitously. The memorandum admits as much.
A good way of thinking about it is that the essence of a contract is a bargained-for exchange. This is a term coined by courts in analyzing a contract. Where is the bargained-for exchange here? There is none. It was a gift. It would be like my parents giving me a car for my law school graduation. It was a gift. Sure, it had upkeep expenses that went with the gift — insurance payments, maintenance, etc — but my future payment of those things were not “consideration” for the gift of the car. I did not bargain for this and say “I’ll pay the insurance and upkeep if you buy me a car.” They just gave it to me in recognition of my “past performance” of working hard through college & law school. Same situation with former Mayor Sullivan.
Legal Eagle via AKM