Facts: Kay, from South Korea, married Louis, the scion of an Orthodox Jewish family that owned a large import-export business. Kay then learned that Louis was totally dependent upon his family for support, and that he was unstable and abusive. Nonetheless, the couple eventually had three children.

Kay alleged that Louis and Edith, his mother, pressured her to convert to Judaism, partly so that the children (ages 1 to 3) could enroll in an orthodox school. Edith orally promised that if Kay joined the religion, she would provide 1) a "wonderful home" for Kay and Louis; 2) a generous lifestyle for the rest of their lives; 3) the best education possible for the children; 4) additional financial support; 5) employment in the family business for the children, if they wished it; and 6) full acceptance of Kay and her children in the family. Kay agreed. The entire family journeyed to Israel, where Edith arranged for a high-ranking Rabbi to convert Kay. The couple married there in a religious ceremony. Edith then provided the family with a 27- room mansion near New York City, increased Kay's monthly allowance from $200 to $12,000, and gave her daughter-in-law a no-limit credit card.

Thirteen years later Kay began divorce proceedings, and all financial assistance stopped. Kay sued, seeking the home and continued support. Edith denied making the agreement. At trial, the jury found that the parties had in fact made such a bargain. Edith appealed, claiming that even if there had been an oral contract, the statute of frauds barred its enforcement.

You Be the Judge: Does the statute of frauds prevent enforcement of the oral agreement between Kay and Edith? Who should win? Explain.