Whitten v. Greeley-Shaw

520 A.2d 1307 (1987)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

As assignee of a promissory note secured by a mortgage deed of a home in Harpswell, P sought to foreclose due to D's failure to pay any portion of the $64,000.00 long since overdue on the promissory note. D alleged that she was the owner of the home, that it was given to her by P as an incident of their four-year romantic relationship, and as assistance toward her efforts to start life anew with her fiancée. D admits to having executed both the promissory note and the mortgage deed in favor of P's assignor. P claims that neither P, nor his attorney (who was the assignor), had informed her of what the documents were that she was signing, their legal significance, or that she would be responsible for annual payments on the note. A week later, when photocopying the documents, D thoroughly examined them and realized their legal significance. Not until the foreclosure action was commenced, did she make known to P her misunderstanding. D also attempted to enforce the terms of a written 'agreement' entered into by P and D. The parties had engaged in an intermittent extra-marital affair from 1972 until March 1980. D wanted to have 'something in writing' because of all the past promises to her that she said P had broken. D unilaterally drew up the 'agreement' while in Bermuda, and P signed it without objection. There was an original and a copy, and only he signed the original. The written conditions required P to make payments to D of $500.00 per month for an indeterminate period, make any 'major repairs' to the Harpswell home, pay for any medical needs, take one trip with the D and supply her with one piece of jewelry per year, and visit and phone D at various stated intervals. D promised that 'Under no circumstances will there be any calls made to my homes or offices without prior permission from me.' P contends the writing lacked consideration. D argues that the writing is enforceable because there is the necessary objective manifestation of assent on each side and D's promise not to call P without his prior permission. The trial court ruled that there was no consideration, and hence, the agreement was unenforceable. The court ruled for P and D appealed.