Alonzo Marchetti, who owned a construction company, promised his son, Romo, that if Romo would manage the family business for their mutual benefit and would take care of him for the rest of his life, he would leave the family home to Romo. Romo performed as requested - he managed the family business and took care of his father until the father died three years later. When the father died, his will devised the family home to his daughter, Lucia Shipman. Romo brought this action to enforce his father's promise that the home would be given to Romo. The daughter argued that the will should be upheld. What defense will Lucia use? Who will succeed? Did the son and daughter act ethically towards each other? (Post is due before 11 PM Thursday.)

Alonzo Marchetti, father to both his son (Romo) and his daughter (Lucia).

He reached a verbal agreement with Romo but he failed to keep his own part of the of his agreement. However, he devised the family home to his daughter (Lucia Shipman).

Legally, the daughter will claim the home since it was contained in the will of the real estate property.

Lucia Shipman will succeed in getting the family home because their father (Owner) devised it to her. It was given to her with legal backings, whereas Romo's claim is a mere verbal agreement with his deceased father.

No, the son and daughter did not act ethically towards each other. They are siblings and they should have resolved amicably. Lucia Shipman allowed Romo to keep his part of he and his father's agreement, only to come up with a "take it all" will after their father's death. That is not ethical