Symons Vs. Heaton

GaryPlachekand Curtis Symons met in 1964 in 7th grade. They remained close friends untilPlachek'sdeath 46 years later. In 2001,Plachek'selderly mother expressed concern to Symons about her son's excessive drinking. She asked Symons to take care of her son after she died. Symons was a recovered alcoholic, whereasPlachekwas an alcoholic with no desire to stop drinking.In mid-2001, Symons moved intoPlachek'shome atPlachek'srequest. Symon lived there untilPlachek'sdeath in 2010. Symons did not pay rent. He continued working at his job but also cared forPlachekby driving him places, running his errands, taking care of his dog, maintaining the household, and doing other tasks as needed.Plachek, who was unemployed, spent much of his time drinking alcohol and sleeping.AfterPlachek'sdeath, Symons filed a creditor's claim againstPlachek'sestate in the amount of $259,200. In this claim, Symons sought compensation for the care and services he provided toPlachek. The estate's co-administrators, Wayne Heaton and Timothy Tarver, denied the claim. Symons then suedPlachek'sestate, asserting claims for implied contract, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment.

I need help developing an IRAC (issue, rule, analysis, conclusion) to analyze for this case and make a sound and valid argument along with a final decision please?