Leol L. Corson (Plaintiff)

Vs.

Jacob T. Beck and Jill M Beck (Defendants)

​

SUPERIOR COURT

Docket No: RE-2018-0008

Findings, Conclusions, and Judgement

​

This case arises out of a grandfather’s conveyance of his house, real estate, and personal belongings to his granddaughter and her husband. By complaint dated March 6, 2018, the grandfather seeks rescission of the transaction and related relief.

 

The court held a bench trial on October 28 through 30, 2019, in Maine Superior Court, Lincoln County. The court heard testimony from the parties along with… Attorney James Gallagher..., Kerstin Corson, John Corson, Matthew Corson, and Kathleen Corson.

 

The record offers information about the nature of some intra-family relationships. Plaintiff [Leol Corson]’s son John lived with him and was close to him for years; it was John’s sudden departure that triggered the family emergency out of which the real estate transaction arose. Plaintiff also appears to have had a good relationship with Joseph, who was incarcerated at the time of trial. Mr. Corson now lives with Jayson and Kerstin, who were central figures in the family events precipitating his departure from his house.

 

The critical events in this case began when Plaintiff asked John Corson to leave the residence. John, who is now 49 years old, had lived in the house his entire life…. When the events of this case arose, John was divorced and had been joined in the house by his brother Joseph and Joseph’s wife. Plaintiff eventually became upset with John and asked him to leave and to take the others with him.

 

Earlier in the year, in May, 2016, Defendants had moved to Maine from their home in Utah. They stayed at a campground in Freeport and Visited Plaintiff almost every weekend. After Plaintiff expelled John, Joseph, and Lizzie, he called Jill Beck to say he was unable to pay his bills and he wanted Defendants to move in with him. Jill noted that Plaintiff was upset when he called, so she followed up by speaking with John. John reported he could not take any more, that living with Plaintiff was “too hard,” and that Plaintiff was ”a mean SOB like his father.” Joe and Lizzie, listening in on speaker phone, confirmed John’s report.

 

This upheaval in Plaintiff’s life precipitated a family meeting about two weeks later. Jayson and Kerstin Corson and their children, Matthew Corson, and Defendants all went to Plaintiff’s house to discuss ensuring his care. Plaintiff was visibly stressed. He insisted he could not pay his bills. Defendants offered to come stay with him on weekends. The possibility of a reverse mortgage was discussed.

 

Following this meeting, Plaintiff went to see Attorney James W. Gallagher, Jr, who had provided legal services to him for more than 40 years. Jacob attended the meeting. Afterwards, Jacob and Jill discussed strategies for intervening, including buying Plaintiff’s house and assuming the mortgage debt. They presented this idea at another family meeting that was attended by Jayson and Kerstin; further, they consulted with Matthew and with Jill’s father Leonard. No one had a better idea for leveraging Plaintiff’s assets to care for him.

 

Defendants intended to move in with Plaintiff but their plan changed after the closing, When Jayson and Kerstin said they wanted to move to Plaintiff’s home in Bristol from their current residence in Howland so they could be nearer to their child and grandchild. Jayson and Kerstin were adamant and Plaintiff approved of their plan. Defendants acquiesced in this change in arrangements and assisted Jayson and Kerstin in their move. The plan as it developed was for Jayson and Kerstin to move out of Plaintiff’s residence in November of 2017 and for Defendants then to move in with Plaintiff. 

 

It is Plaintiff’s burden to prove that the value of the LAA was less than the equity in the house. See 33 NLRB. § 1022 (the elderly dependent person bears the burden of establishing a presumption of undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence). The inequality in value that Plaintiff argues is not self evident; depending on how long he was able to live in his house with assistance (more than two years have passed since the transaction), and on the monetary value of the services, the transaction might have proved financially advantageous to Plaintiff. 

 

Third and more generally, Mr. Gallagher’s involvement belies Plaintiff’s argument that the entire arrangement was a calculated swindle by Defendants. This was not a situation in which Defendants were attempting to exploit Plaintiff’s vulnerable condition through their relationship with him in order to coax him into surrendering his house. This was not a secret, manipulative transaction. it took place under the scrutiny of a lawyer and multiple interested members of an extended family, all trying to solve a problem together. That everyone’s efforts were eventually frustrated by family dynamics reinforces the conclusion that the transaction itself was informed, purposeful, and free of bad faith.

 

For the above reasons, the court concludes Defendants have rebutted the presumption of undue influence by demonstrating that the transaction was fair and free of undue influence. Defendants did not abuse their confidential relationship with Plaintiff. They entered into a fully informed, family—scrutinized transaction that did not work as planned due to decisions made after the fact.

 

With respect to Count I, the sale of Plaintiff’s house to his granddaughter and her husband did not meet the definition of an improvident transfer under 33 M.R.S. § 1022. The court concludes that Defendants did not abuse a confidential relationship as alleged in Count II. Plaintiff failed to prove unjust enrichment in Count III. Defendants’ actions after the transaction failed may support other theories of relief but do not meet the elements of this action.

​