Heights Realty, Ltd. v. Phillips
749 P.2d 77 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The legal presumption that a person is competent to enter a contract can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence, including lay testimony from those who observed the person's conduct over time, demonstrating that the person was incapable of understanding the nature and effect of the transaction.
Facts:
- In 1984, Johnye Mary Gholson, an 84-year-old woman, contacted Pat Eichenberg of Heights Realty, Ltd. to sell her property.
- On September 26, 1984, Gholson signed an exclusive listing agreement with Heights Realty to sell the property for $250,000 with a $75,000 down payment.
- On October 10, 1984, Gholson signed an addendum to the agreement, increasing the required down payment to $100,000.
- In the years and months leading up to the signing, Gholson's family observed a significant mental decline, including an inability to manage her finances, episodes of confusion, and memory loss, such as forgetting the recent death of her brother.
- A psychiatrist who later examined Gholson concluded that she suffered from a slow, progressive decline in cognitive skills involving judgment, reasoning, and memory, which began around 1979 or 1980.
- In November 1984, Heights Realty presented a purchase offer for $255,000, which Gholson did not accept.
Procedural Posture:
- Heights Realty, Ltd. filed a complaint against Johnye Mary Gholson in district court, seeking a commission under a listing contract.
- During the proceedings, Gholson was adjudicated incompetent, and E.A. Phillips was appointed conservator of her estate, becoming the defendant.
- After a bench trial, the district court found Gholson lacked the mental capacity to execute the contract and entered judgment in favor of Phillips.
- Heights Realty, Ltd., as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the Supreme Court of New Mexico.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was there substantial evidence from which the trial court could properly conclude that the presumption of competency was overcome by clear and convincing proof, thus rendering a contract void for lack of mental capacity?
Opinions:
Majority - Stowers, Justice
Yes, there was substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of competency. To void a contract for lack of mental capacity, the party alleging incompetence must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person could not understand the nature and effect of the act in which they were engaged. While there is a legal presumption of competency, evidence of a person's condition before and after the contract's execution is admissible. In this case, the extensive testimony from Gholson's son-in-law and granddaughter, who observed her progressive mental deterioration over many years, constituted substantial evidence. This lay testimony, combined with the opinion of the psychiatrist who examined her, was sufficient for the trial court to find that Gholson's degenerative mental disease prevented her from understanding the agreement, thus overcoming the presumption of competency.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes the significant weight courts may give to lay witness testimony in contract capacity cases. It clarifies that even without conclusive medical expert testimony, a consistent and detailed account of mental decline from long-term observers can constitute the 'clear and convincing' evidence required to rebut the strong presumption of competency. This precedent protects vulnerable individuals, particularly the elderly, from being bound by contracts they could not comprehend. It signals to litigators that building a case based on the observations of family and close relations can be a successful strategy in proving a lack of contractual capacity.
Unlock the full brief for Heights Realty, Ltd. v. Phillips