Case No$.35$

EXPRESS AND IMPLIED CONTRACTS

Trimmer v$.$ Van Bomel

Supreme Court, New York County

$107$ Misc$\mathrm{.}2$d $201,434$ N$.$Y$.$S$\mathrm{.}2$d $82(1980)$

FACTS: Plaintiff Leonard Trimmer $($Trimmer$)$ was a travel tour operator and man of modest means. On a tour he was managing he met Defendant Catherine Van Bomel $($Van Bomel$),$ a wealthy widow with assets in excess of forty million dollars. A relationship blossomed between them and led to an arrangement in which Van Bomel supported Trimmer in a luxurious fashion and he devoted all of his time and attention to her. He traveled with her on trips, accompanied her to parties and the theater, and went with her to lunch and dinner engagements. The relationship survived five years, during which she spent money on him lavishly, dressing him in clothes made in Italy and London, buying him two Pontiacs and a Jaguar, paying his travel expenses and providing him with a monthly allowance.

For reasons unknown, the relationship terminated. Trimmer thereafter sought money from Van Bomel to maintain the lifestyle to which he had become accustomed. When she refused to pay him he began this action claiming breach of implied and express contracts. He argued that a duty on Van Bomel's part to pay for his support should be implied from the services he provided and the fact he forfeited his travel tour operator's job. With regard to the express contract, Trimmer claimed that he and Van Bomel had talked about her setting aside for Trimmer enough money to enable him to live the rest of his life $"$in the sumptuous style" he had maintained during his association with her.