Sosik v. Conlon, 2826
| Decision Date | 01 November 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 2826,2826 |
| Citation | 164 A.2d 696,91 R.I. 439 |
| Parties | Alice SOSIK v. Joseph T. CONLON et al. Equity |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
George Ajootian, Providence, for complainant.
Haig Barsamian, Providence, for respondent Joseph T. Conlon.
This is a bill in equity for the cancellation of a certain real estate mortgage and promissory note secured by said mortgage. The cause is here on the complainant's appeal from a decree of the superior court denying and dismissing the bill after a hearing on the merits. The complainant relies on eight reasons of appeal which are substantially to the effect that the decree is against the law and the evidence and the weight thereof.
The bill was filed on September 5, 1958. It alleges that the complainant 'is and has for some time been mentally incompetent and during the past six (6) months certain transactions were made with the Respondent who had full knowledge of said fact.' The transactions referred to are a mortgage of three parcels of real estate on Fillmore, Dale and Dodge streets in the city of Providence and a promissory note which reads as follows:
'February 28th 1958
'$
'6 yrs. after date for value received I promise to pay Joseph T. Conlon or order, Thirty-six hundred ($3600 00/xx) and no/100-Dollars, with interest at the rate of six (6%) per cent per annum, payable $60.00 monthly on 25th of each month till said principal sum is paid, whether at or after maturity, and all installments of interest in arrears, whether before or after maturity to bear interest at the rate aforesaid till paid.
Providence, R. I.'
The bill further alleges that respondent Conlon foreclosed such mortgage and conveyed the real estate to himself by mortgagee's deed recorded August 27, 1958. The foreclosure sale was based on complainant's default of the monthly payments of $60 as prescribed in the note. The bill alleges that the mortgage and note were null and void and that the foreclosure sale was invalid on two grounds, first, because complainant was mentally incompetent when she executed the mortgage and note and, secondly, because respondent did not validly advertise the foreclosure sale. At the hearing in the superior court complainant did not press the second ground, but relied on a new ground not alleged in the bill that the note did not require any payment on the principal and therefore there was no default.
The trial justice found that complainant had failed to prove 'that at the time of the entry into the mortgage in February, she was of unsound mind and [in] the condition of such a nature as to invalidate her mortgage and contract.' He also found 'no element of overreaching, taking advantage of the complainant.' He construed the note as obligating her to pay $60 monthly on the principal and interest and he found that she had obviously breached such obligation and was therefore in default.
We have carefully examined all the evidence and we cannot say that he was clearly wrong in finding that complainant had failed to prove mental incapacity on February 28, 1958. The only evidence worthy of notice on this point was the following letter dated July 6, 1959: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Landmark Medical Center v. Gauthier
...from making a valid contract provided that person is able to understand the nature and effect of his or her acts. Sosik v. Conlon, 91 R.I. 439, 443, 164 A.2d 696, 698 (1960). Claire's prior or subsequent hospitalization for mental illness at the IMH is not determinative of her capacity to c......
-
Smith v. O'Connell
...to refer to a condition rendering a person incompetent or unable to manage his or her everyday affairs. See, e.g., Sosik v. Conlon, 91 R.I. 439, 164 A.2d 696, 698 (R.I.1960) (in order to invalidate a contract on the ground that the plaintiff was mentally incapacitated or of "unsound mind," ......
-
Smith v. O'Connell
...to refer to a condition rendering a person incompetent or unable to manage his or her everyday affairs. See, e.g., Sosik v. Conlon, 164 A.2d 696, 698 (R.I. 1960) (in order to invalidate a contract on the ground that the plaintiff was mentally incapacitated or of "unsound mind," "[t]here mus......
-
Roe v. Gelineau
...mind has been used, like insanity, to denote a mental infirmity that vitiates legal capacity generally. For example, in Sosik v. Conlon, 91 R.I. 439, 164 A.2d 696 (1960), we explained that every mental disability would not necessarily preclude the execution of a "Mere mental weakness, or in......