Ortelere v. Teachers' Retirement Board
25 N.Y.2d 196 (1969)
Rule of Law:
A contract is voidable if a party, due to mental illness or defect, is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction and the other party has reason to know of this condition, even if the afflicted party possesses cognitive understanding of the transaction.
Facts:
- Grace Ortelere, a teacher for over 40 years, was a member of the New York City Teachers' Retirement System.
- In 1958, Ortelere selected a retirement benefit option that would pay any unexhausted reserve to her husband upon her death.
- In March 1964, Ortelere suffered a nervous breakdown and was diagnosed with involutional psychosis, melancholia type, for which she took a medical leave of absence.
- Ortelere's psychiatrist stated that due to her illness, she could not make decisions of any kind and her judgment was severely impaired.
- On February 11, 1965, while still under psychiatric care, Ortelere changed her retirement election to receive the maximum possible allowance during her lifetime, which eliminated any death benefit for her husband.
- This election was financially detrimental to her husband, who had quit his job to care for her.
- Less than two months after this election, on April 8, 1965, Ortelere died, causing her entire retirement reserve to be forfeited.
Procedural Posture:
- Frank Ortelere, as executor of his wife's estate, sued the Teachers' Retirement System in the New York Supreme Court (trial court) to set aside her retirement benefit election.
- The trial court, after a nonjury trial, ruled in favor of Ortelere's estate, finding that she was mentally incompetent at the time of the election.
- The Teachers' Retirement System, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment, holding as a matter of law that there was insufficient proof of mental incompetence.
- Ortelere's estate, as appellant, then appealed the Appellate Division's decision to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person's contractual act, such as an election of retirement benefits, become voidable due to mental incapacity if, despite understanding the transaction, their mental illness prevents them from acting in a reasonable manner, and the other party has reason to know of this condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Breitel, J.
Yes. A contractual act is voidable if, by reason of mental illness, a party is unable to act in a reasonable manner concerning the transaction and the other party has reason to know of the condition. The traditional cognitive test for contractual capacity, which focuses solely on whether a party comprehends the nature of the transaction, is outdated and fails to account for modern psychiatric understanding that mental illness can impair volitional and affective capacity without destroying cognitive ability. The court adopts the modern standard articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which allows for avoidance if a person is unable to act reasonably and the other party is on notice. Here, there was sufficient evidence that Ortelere's psychosis rendered her incapable of making a rational choice, and the Retirement System had reason to know of her condition due to her medical leave and involvement with Board of Education physicians. Therefore, the case should be retried under this modern standard.
Dissenting - Jasen, J.
No. The traditional test for contractual capacity, which requires a party to be incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the transaction, should be upheld. The plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proving Ortelere's incompetence. Evidence, particularly a detailed letter from Ortelere to the Retirement Board asking sophisticated questions about her options, conclusively shows she understood the transaction. Her choice of maximum benefits was rational given her family's financial needs. The majority's new rule is unworkable, undermines the security of contracts, and will encourage frivolous claims based on 'psychological attack'.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant evolution in the law of contractual capacity by moving beyond the traditional, narrow cognitive test. By adopting the modern volitional test from the Restatement (Second), the court recognized that mental illness can invalidate a contract not just by impairing understanding, but by overpowering free will. This broadens the grounds on which a contract can be voided for mental incapacity, placing a greater responsibility on parties who are aware of another's potential mental illness. The ruling impacts any contractual relationship where one party's capacity is questionable, especially in non-commercial contexts like employee benefit systems.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Ortelere v. Teachers' Retirement Board (1969)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"