Heights Realty, Ltd. v. Phillips
New Mexico Supreme Court
749 P.2d 77, 106 N.M. 692 (1988)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
Heights Realty, Ltd. (Heights) (plaintiff) entered into an exclusive listing contract with Johnye Mary Gholson (Gholson) (original named defendant). In 1984, Gholson telephoned Pat Eichenberg, a real estate broker and the owner of Heights, to secure Heights’ services in selling Gholson’s property. At this time, Gholson was eighty-four years old. On September 26, 1984, Gholson signed a contract listing the property for one year at $250,000 with a $75,000 cash down payment. No other terms were included in the contract. On October 10, 1984, Gholson changed her mind about the down payment and signed an addendum increasing the down payment amount to $100,000. In November 1984, an offer was made to purchase Gholson’s property for $255,000. Gholson did not accept that offer. Heights brought suit against Gholson for the commission it allegedly earned for finding a buyer for Gholson’s property. During the proceedings, Gholson was adjudicated incompetent, and Phillips (defendant), Gholson’s son-in-law, was appointed conservator of her estate. At trial, Heights argued that the contract it made with Gholson was enforceable because she did not lack the mental capacity to contract at the time of contract formation. Based on testimony received from expert psychiatrist witnesses, Gholson’s relatives, and Gholson herself, the trial court held Gholson did not have the capacity to enter the leasing contract with Heights. The trial court thus held the contract invalid, and Heights appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stowers, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.