Belanger v. Yorke
| Decision Date | 01 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | BUSINESS & COUNSUMER DOCKET DOCKET NO. BCD-CV-17-56 |
| Parties | REBECCA WILLIAMS BELANGER, Plaintiff, v. LISA M. YORKE, Defendant. |
| Court | Maine Superior Court |
CUMBERLAND, ss.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Rebecca Williams Belanger's motion for partial summary judgment and Defendant Lisa M. Yorke's (as Counterclaim-Plaintiff) motion for partial summary judgment. The Court heard oral argument on the motion on August 31, 2018. Christopher Pazar, Esq. appeared for Ms. Belanger and Ms. Yorke was represented by William Childs, Esq.
This is a case about a piece of real property that a man inherited from his parents and seems to have conveyed to both his wife and his daughter (his wife's stepdaughter) at different times during his life. That man has since passed away. Both women now claim exclusive title to the property, and have sued each other for, inter alia, a declaratory judgment to that effect.
On October 9, 1976, Bradford P. Belanger, Sr. and Dorothy C. Belanger conveyed property located in West Bath, Maine to Bradford P. Belanger, Jr. ("Brad") by virtue of a warranty deed recorded at the Sagadahoc County Registry of Deeds (the "Registry") at Book 446, Page 182. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 1; Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 3.) The Property is located at 22 Bruce Byway and contains a cottage (the "Cottage"). (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 3.) Brad passed away on August 21, 2016 at the age of eighty-two following a kidney cancer diagnosis seven years prior in 2009. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 4-5; Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 90.) Brad was survived by his wife of thirty-nine years, Rebecca Williams Belanger ("Ms. Belanger") as well as his three adult children. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 6-8, Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 4.) One of those children is Defendant Lisa M. Yorke, a child from his first marriage. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 8, Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 5.) The other two adult children are the children of Brad and Ms. Belanger. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 7.)
Before 2016, Brad had executed two wills, one in 1985 and one in 1999, neither of which made any provision for Ms. Yorke; the former having alluded to "having otherwise provided for her." (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 8-11.) In the spring of 2016, Ms. Belanger called John Voorhees, Esq. and subsequently she and Brad retained Mr. Voorhees to update their wills and obtain a financial power of attorney for Ms. Belanger over Brad. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 22-23.) Thereafter, the two met with Mr. Voorhees on two occasions jointly, and Brad met with Mr. Voorhees alone on at least one occasion thereafter to sign the financial power of attorney. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 24-25.)
Pursuant to an online title search performed in the course of his work for Brad and Ms. Belanger, Mr. Voorhees discovered that although Ms. Belanger had indicated in a questionnaire that the Property was held jointly by her and Brad, it was in fact held by Brad alone. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 26-29.) The upshot of this discovery, and a subsequent meeting between Mr. Voorhees and both clients on June 27, 2016, was that Brad executed a warranty deed that purportedly grants the Property to himself and Ms. Belanger as joint tenants (the "Ms. Belanger Deed").1 (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 21; see Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 30, 32-33, 35-40.) The Ms. Belanger Deed was recorded on June 29, 2016. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 40.) Ms. Yorke does not dispute this. However, she does dispute Ms. Belanger's assertion that Brad was mentally clear during the meeting when the deed was executed. (Pl's Supp'gS.M.F. ¶¶ 41-42; Def's Opp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 41-42.) Mr. Voorhees and Ms. Belanger both testified at their depositions that Brad never said anything to them about a prior conveyance of the Property to Ms. Yorke. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 46, 48.)
In fact, Brad had executed a deed releasing certain "land in West Bath, County of Sagadahoc, State of Maine" to Ms. Yorke over a decade prior on June 20, 2005 (the "Yorke Deed"). (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 49, 52-53.) The only real estate owned by Brad meeting that description at that time was the Property. (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 14.) The Yorke Deed was accompanied by a letter from Brad to Ms. Yorke stating that he "always wanted you [Ms. Yorke] to have this property and look forward to seeing you enjoy this property" and that he "always intended for [the Property] to go to you for you and your family." (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 18-20.) The Yorke Deed was recorded on July 15, 2016, over ten years after it was executed and sixteen days after the Ms. Belanger Deed was recorded. The Yorke Deed states that the property to be conveyed is "more particularly described as follows: See Exhibit A Hereto Attached"; however, there is no document identified as Exhibit A attached to the Yorke Deed as recorded. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 50, 53-54.) Exhibit A has since been identified and there is no dispute that the Yorke Deed attached Exhibit A when it was executed in 2005. (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 17.) There is no dispute that the Yorke Deed was a gift to Ms. Yorke exchanged for one dollar nominal consideration. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 58-59.)
Ms. Yorke's decision to record the Yorke Deed was precipitated by an uncomfortable encounter on July 2, 2016, when Ms. Belanger and two of her cousins came to the Property, looked around the Cottage, and asked Ms. Yorke when she was leaving. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 83-84; Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 54.) This was unusual because Ms. Belanger did not generally visit the Property and her behavior seemed strange to Ms. Yorke. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 85; Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 55.) WhenMs. Yorke related this visit to her husband, he conducted an online title search and found the Ms. Belanger Deed recorded for the Property. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 87; Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 56.)
After learning about the Ms. Belanger Deed, Ms. Yorke asked Brad about it in person in July 2016. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 92, 94; Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 75.) Ms. Yorke testified that Brad told her he thought he was just signing a will and had no idea that he had signed the Ms. Belanger Deed. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 92; Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 77.) Ms. Yorke further testified that Brad told her to go to a lawyer to get the Ms. Belanger Deed rescinded; instead, Ms. Yorke's husband decided to conduct his own online legal research in order to determine whether he and Ms. Yorke could rescind the Ms. Belanger Deed themselves without involving an attorney. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 96; Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 78.) Based on Mr. Yorke's research, Ms. Yorke handwrote the following statement (the "Statement"), putatively on Brad's behalf:
(Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 97, 99; Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 87.) Rather than have this statement reviewed by an attorney, Ms. Yorke again relied on her husband's online legal research, which this time concluded that the Statement was not necessary at all. (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 79-80.) Brad purportedly asked Ms. Yorke about the Statement when she was driving him to a doctor's appointment sometime thereafter. (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 81.) Ms. Yorke explained to Brad that based on her husband's onlinelegal research no statement was necessary but Brad apparently2 insisted that he be allowed to sign the Statement and that they have it notarized. (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 82-84.) Brad signed the Statement and they had the Statement stamped by a notary public on the way to Brad's doctor's appointment on August 15, 2016. (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 84-86.) Ms. Yorke recorded the Statement in the Registry on August 22, 2016. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 107-109; Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 88.)
The parties dispute when and how Ms. Belanger became aware of Ms. Yorke's claimed interest in the Property. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 60; Def's Opp'g S.M.F. ¶ 60.) However, it is undisputed that Ms. Yorke never told Ms. Belanger about the Yorke Deed, her recording of that deed, the Statement, her recording of the Statement, or any of her conversations with Brad about the two deeds or the Statement out of a desire to avoid confrontation and to protect her father from an uncomfortable situation with his wife. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 88-90, 110-111.) Nonetheless, ultimately, she thought her father should be the one to tell Ms. Belanger about the Yorke Deed in his own way and in his own time. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 62, 64; Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 26-28.) Ms. Yorke did not previously record the Yorke Deed for the same reasons and was waiting for him to tell her to record the deed. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 63-66.) Toward the end of his life, Ms. Yorke believed that Brad was afraid of Ms. Belanger and that there was a power imbalance between them as Brad was sick with cancer and Ms. Belanger was his caregiver and medical decisionmaker. (Def's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶¶ 67-73.) Ms. Belanger says that had she found out about the Yorke Deed between 2005 and her husband's passing, her relationship with Brad would have been very different. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 91.) She would have at least ensured that she was not contributing financially to the Property, and she would have modified the mutual estate plan she had established with Brad. (Pl's Supp'g S.M.F. ¶ 91.)
There is no genuine dispute that Ms. Yorke and her family have used the Property more than Ms. Belanger or Brad, especially...
To continue reading
Request your trial