McComsey v. Leaf

In McComsey v. Leaf (1939) 36 Cal. App. 2d 132, the Court stated: "If this were an action to recover upon a promise made as a consideration for a marriage," section 1624, subdivision (3) would invalidate the oral contract. (McComsey, at p. 141.) Despite this dicta, McComsey does not apply section 1624, subdivision (3) to invalidate an oral contract between a father-in-law and son-in-law. The son-in-law's "gift" version of the contract was fully executed, and the statute of frauds did not make a fully executed contract unenforceable. (36 Cal. App. 2d at p. 141.) The issue in McComsey was whether the parties' declarations were competent to create a triable issue of fact whether the father-in-law's payment of money to the son-in-law was a loan or a gift. McComsey reversed the grant of summary judgment based on the existence of a triable issue of fact, not because section 1624, subdivision (3) barred the oral contract.