Van Middlesworth v. Century Bank & Trust Co.
Michigan Court of Appeals
2000 WL 33421451 (2000)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
In March 1995, Rodney Van Middlesworth and Sue Van Middlesworth (plaintiffs) entered a written agreement to purchase 500 acres of farmland from Harold Piper. Harold later died. The Middlesworths brought suit against Harold’s successor trustee, Century Bank & Trust Company, Timothy Piper, and next friends Leon Piper and Phillip Piper (defendants), seeking specific performance and damages for breach of contract. Testimony established that a series of transactions between Rodney and Harold for the sale of corn and beans in 1992 and 1993 reflected a diminishing ability on Harold’s part to understand the nature of the transactions. Rodney also testified that interactions with Harold in April and May 1995 caused Rodney to conclude that Harold did not understand the words being exchanged between them. Testimony from witnesses including a clinical psychologist, a neurologist, and a physician specializing in geriatric neurology indicated that Harold was suffering from dementia as of March 1995. The trial court concluded that Harold was mentally incompetent at the time of the agreement and that reasonable people in the Middlesworths’ position would have been put on notice that further inquiry into Harold’s mental competence was necessary before executing the agreement. The Middlesworths appealed. The Michigan Court of Appeals granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.