393 Ill. Dec. 604, 34 N.E.3d 1132
Jacob Szafranski and Karla Dunston began dating in November 2009.1 In mid-March 2010, Karla was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma and learned that chemotherapy would likely cause her to lose her fertility.2 On March 24, 2010, after meeting with fertility specialist Dr. Ralph Kazer, Karla called Jacob at work and asked if he would provide sperm to create pre-embryos with her; Jacob responded yes and stated he wanted to help her have a child.3
The next day, Jacob and Karla met at Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation, where Jacob deposited sperm and both signed the 21-page Informed Consent for Assisted Reproduction.4 Later that day they consulted attorney Nidhi Desai about co-parenting or sperm donor agreements.5 On March 29, Desai sent a draft Co-Parent Agreement that was never signed.6 On April 6, Karla underwent egg retrieval yielding eight eggs, all of which Jacob agreed to fertilize with his sperm, resulting in three viable pre-embryos that were cryopreserved.7
Karla began chemotherapy on April 7, 2010.8 Jacob ended their relationship in May 2010.9 In a June 14 email, Jacob expressed reservations about the pre-embryos but initially left the decision to Karla; on September 6 he stated he would not allow her to use them.10 Jacob filed suit on August 22, 2011, seeking to enjoin Karla from using the pre-embryos, and Karla filed a counterclaim for sole custody.11
Following a hearing on summary judgment motions, the circuit court awarded Karla sole custody and control.12 Jacob appealed, and in Szafranski I the appellate court remanded for application of a hybrid approach requiring honoring any advance agreement or, absent that, balancing the parties' interests, with additional discovery permitted.13 On remand the circuit court conducted a two-day trial and again awarded Karla sole custody and control, finding both an oral contract and that her interests prevailed under balancing.14 Jacob appealed that judgment.15
Whether Jacob Szafranski and Karla Dunston formed an oral contract on March 24, 2010, permitting Karla to use the cryopreserved pre-embryos without Jacob's further consent?16
An oral agreement is binding where there is an offer, an acceptance, and a meeting of the minds as to the terms of the agreement.17 To be enforceable, the material terms of a contract must also be definite and certain.18 The parties' intent in forming an oral contract and the terms of the contract are questions of fact to be determined by the trier of fact.19 A reviewing court will not disturb the trial court's finding unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.20
Yes. On March 24, 2010, Karla offered by asking Jacob whether he would provide sperm to create pre-embryos with her after learning she would likely lose her fertility from chemotherapy.21 Jacob accepted by responding yes and stating he wanted to help her have a child.22 The undisputed facts establish that both parties understood the purpose of the agreement was to allow Karla to preserve her ability to have a biological child with her own eggs after treatment.23 The pre-embryos would be cryopreserved for later use.24 Neither party discussed or contemplated any limitation on Karla's future use.25
The trial court found a meeting of the minds that Karla could use the pre-embryos without Jacob's further consent.26 This finding is supported by Jacob's own testimony that the thought of placing limitations never crossed his mind.27 It is also supported by his agreement to fertilize all eggs on April 6.28 It is further supported by his June 14 email in which he left the decision to Karla.29 Because several reasonable inferences are possible from the evidence, the conclusions drawn by the trial court must prevail.30 The finding is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.31
The parties formed an oral contract on March 24, 2010, permitting Karla to use the pre-embryos without Jacob's further consent.32
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Harris dissented from the majority's conclusion that an enforceable oral contract existed on March 24.33 He noted that Karla and Jacob testified they never discussed the disposition of the frozen pre-embryos if their relationship were to end.34 All the testimonial evidence shows that on March 24, there was no meeting of the minds regarding the disposition of the frozen pre-embryos if the relationship were to end.35
He emphasized that the question of disposition is a distinct and essential element separate from the decision to undergo IVF.36 The trial court's finding of an enforceable oral contract on disposition was against the manifest weight of the evidence.37 The absence of any agreement on this point required a finding that no enforceable contract existed.38
Whether the Informed Consent for Assisted Reproduction signed by the parties on March 25, 2010, modified or contradicted any prior oral agreement regarding disposition of the pre-embryos?39
A subsequent writing does not modify a prior oral contract when the writing contemplates that the parties may reach a separate agreement on disposition and expressly states that the clinic will abide by any such agreement.40 When construing a contract, the court must give effect to the intent of the parties as gathered from the instrument as a whole.41 Boilerplate language that merely sets forth clinic policy without specifying a disposition upon separation of unmarried couples does not override a prior agreement.42
No. The Informed Consent signed on March 25 expressly contemplates that the parties may reach a separate agreement regarding disposition.43 It states that Northwestern will abide by any agreement reached between the parties.44 The consent provision requiring both partners' consent is framed as Northwestern's policy to protect itself.45 It does not address or specify any disposition in the event an unmarried couple separates.46 That question is left open for the parties' own agreement.47
The prior oral contract formed on March 24 is therefore controlling.48 The Informed Consent neither contradicts nor modifies it.49 The document itself encourages the parties to consult an attorney to document their specific desires.50 The evidence shows the parties never intended the form to govern their rights upon separation.51 The circuit court correctly concluded that the March 24 oral agreement stands uncontradicted.52
The Informed Consent for Assisted Reproduction signed on March 25, 2010, did not modify or contradict the prior oral agreement regarding disposition of the pre-embryos.53
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Harris would have held that the Informed Consent controls the dispute.54 He reasoned that Karla agreed to its terms as a matter of law when she signed it.55 The plain language requiring both partners' consent for any use must be enforced.56
Because no prior enforceable oral agreement on disposition existed, the consent form's requirement of mutual consent barred Karla from using the pre-embryos without Jacob's agreement.57 He stressed that the informed consent signed on March 25 controls because no prior enforceable oral agreement on disposition existed.58
Whether Karla Dunston's interests in using the pre-embryos outweigh Jacob Szafranski's interests in preventing their use under a balancing-of-interests analysis?59
When the parties have no advance agreement concerning disposition, the court must weigh the parties' relative interests in using or not using the pre-embryos.60 The balancing inquiry is fact-intensive.61 The trial court's determination will be upheld unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.62
Yes. Karla's interest in using the pre-embryos is her only remaining opportunity to have a biological child with her own eggs after ovarian failure caused by chemotherapy.63 This circumstance the parties both recognized when they created the pre-embryos to preserve that possibility.64 Jacob's interests in preventing use center on speculative concerns about future romantic relationships and the public nature of the litigation.65 The trial court properly characterized those concerns as moot or speculative.66
The evidence establishes that the sole purpose of fertilizing Karla's last viable eggs with Jacob's sperm was to give her a chance at biological parenthood after treatment.67 No evidence shows that alternative methods of parenthood would be an acceptable substitute for Karla.68 The trial court's conclusion that Karla's interests prevail is therefore not against the manifest weight of the evidence.69
Karla Dunston's interests in using the pre-embryos outweigh Jacob Szafranski's interests in preventing their use under a balancing-of-interests analysis.70
Whether Jacob Szafranski's constitutional claims bar enforcement of any agreement or a balancing result favoring Karla?71
There is no constitutional obstacle to honoring an advance agreement regarding the disposition of pre-embryos or, in the absence of such an agreement, to balancing the parties' interests in the event of a dispute over use.72
No. Jacob's claim that he possesses a constitutional right not to be a parent that would be violated by enforcement of the agreement or by a balancing result favoring Karla was already rejected in the prior appeal.73 The court reaffirms that ruling because the hybrid approach of first honoring agreements and then balancing interests when no agreement exists does not violate constitutional protections.74 The placement of pre-embryos is not equivalent to intercourse for constitutional purposes in this context.75 The state's interest in enforcing voluntary agreements made in the course of assisted reproduction does not impermissibly burden any protected right.76
Jacob Szafranski's constitutional claims do not bar enforcement of the agreement or a balancing result favoring Karla.77
Related opinions on this issue
Presiding Justice Simon concurred in the judgment and opinion without writing separately, thereby joining the majority's resolution of the contract formation issue, the effect of the Informed Consent, and the balancing of interests that favored Karla.78
Justice Harris dissented from the overall result.79 He maintained that the informed consent signed on March 25 controls because no prior enforceable oral agreement on disposition existed.80 He stressed that courts must apply time-tested legal principles rather than sympathy when resolving disputes with significant implications such as bringing a child into the world.81
He would have enforced the mutual consent requirement in the Informed Consent and denied Karla the right to use the pre-embryos.82