Opinion
CV-2014-0193
07-14-2016
Gregory Fleming, Plaintiff, v. Jeffrey Witham, Jr., Defendant.
JUDGMENT
Bruce C. Mallonee Justice.
This case came on for hearing on May 25, 2016. Plaintiff was represented by Attorneys Hilary Fernald and Julie Ann Mallett, Defendant by Attorney Peter Baldacci. Following the close of evidence, the parties submitted written arguments. The court thanks counsel for an efficient trial presentation and for helpful memoranda. The case is now in order for decision.
Plaintiff seeks to void a conveyance of real estate to Defendant that he signed on June 8, 2013, on the basis that he was was intoxicated at the time he signed the deed. The conveyance took place at an unorthodox time-immediately following a wedding- after Plaintiff had indisputedly been drinking for some hours. The precise timing of the transaction, the extent to which Plaintiff was intoxicated, and the extent to which that intoxication was visible, were all matters of dispute among the witnesses at trial. Also at issue was the value of the consideration Plaintiff received for the conveyance.
On the whole, the record supports the following findings of fact:
• Plaintiff began drinking early on the day of the transaction. His consumption included both beer and hard liquor, in amounts he was unable to recall precisely;
• Plaintiff did not remember details of the transaction;
• Plaintiff nonetheless remembered much of the day and what he did, including generally what he drank and with whom he drank it;
• The warranty deed was notarized by the man who had performed the wedding minutes beforehand. Before notarizing the deed, the notary spoke with Plaintiff and satisfied himself there was no impediment to the transaction; specifically, he saw no sign in Plaintiff of disabling intoxication and discerned no lack of understanding of the transaction;
• The court specifically finds that the notary was an unbiased and persuasive witness. His demeanor was forthright and his memory good. He confirmed that he followed his customary practice of evaluating the capacity of the conveyor before notarizing the deed;
• Plaintiff received consideration for the transaction in the form of a life estate and an agreement that Defendant would pay certain obligations related to the real estate;
• The transaction advanced certain goals Plaintiff had articulated, in particular his desire that the property eventually belong to his grandchildren.
The parties' memoranda demonstrate there is little in the way of contemporary caselaw upon which the court can rely in evaluating this evidence. Plaintiff urges the court to apply § 16 of the Restatement 2d of Contracts, "Intoxicated Persons":
A person incurs only voidable contractual duties by entering into a transaction if the other party has reason to know that by reason of intoxication
(a) he is unable to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of the transaction, or
(b) he is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction.
Restat. 2d of Contracts, § 16 (1981)
The court agrees that the Law Court would likely apply this standard to the transaction before it. Because Plaintiff was not visibly intoxicated (though he may have been intoxicated in fact); because the evidence shows he understood exactly what he had done (see his comment after signing, "It's done"); and because the evidence shows he retained the capacity to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction, the court concludes he cannot prevail in this action.
The entry will therefore be:
JUDGMENT in favor of Defendant.
The clerk is directed to incorporate this judgment on the docket by reference.