Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law Today, The Essentials 10th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

تمرين 13

Goodman v. Atwood
FACTS Jean Knowles Goodman, who was eighty-five years old, gave Dr. Steven Atwood several checks over a period of three months that totaled $56,100. Atwood was a veterinarian who had cared for Goodman's dogs for nearly twenty years. Atwood and Goodman had become friends, and he had regularly visited her house to care for her dogs and socialize with her. Shortly after writing the last check, Goodman was hospitalized and diagnosed with dementia (loss of brain function) and alcohol dependency. A guardian was appointed for Goodman. The guardian filed a lawsuit against Atwood to invalidate the gifts, claiming that Goodman had lacked mental capacity and donative intent. At trial, a psychiatrist who had examined Goodman testified on behalf of Atwood that while Goodman lacked the capacity to care for herself, she would have understood that she was giving away her funds. The trial judge ruled that Goodman had the capacity and intent to make the gifts to Atwood. The guardian appealed.
ISSUE Was there sufficient proof that Goodman had donative intent to make the gifts to Atwood even though she was later found to be mentally incompetent?
DECISION Yes. The state appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of Atwood.
REASON In a civil action, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the essential elements of a claim-in this case, the lack of capacity and intent. The court found that the trial judge had used the proper standard of evidence and had kept the burden of proof on the plaintiff (the guardian). There was sufficient evidence of the donor's capacity and intent to support the trial judge's findings. "The plaintiff's own witness conceded the possibility that the donor experienced periods of mental awareness in addition to her lucidity [clarity] regarding financial affairs." The appellate court acknowledged "that a reasonable and conscientious finder of fact could have reached a different conclusion." Nonetheless, it is not the task of an appellate court "to substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder, and on this record we do not conclude that a mistake has clearly been made."
WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? If there had been a jury trial, and the jury had concluded that Goodman lacked mental capacity and intent at the time she made the gifts to Atwood, would the appellate court still have affirmed the decision? Why or why not ?