Baillargeon v. Estate of Dolores A. Daigle
2010 ME 127
| Me. | 2010Background
- Roger Daigle is Dolores Daigle's son and personal representative/residual beneficiary of her estate.
- Dolores sold her house on July 11, 2000 to Priscilla Baillargeon and Andre for $250,000; deed described only 3 acres though the purchase agreement described 9.69 acres.
- In summer 2000 Dolores and Priscilla created joint accounts funded with sale proceeds and other assets to cover Dolores's lifetime needs, with a stated plan that funds not expended would go to Priscilla at Dolores's death.
- Dolores died in January 2003 leaving approximately $232,000 in the joint accounts.
- Priscilla was initially the personal representative; in 2004 Roger petitioned for probate and removal of Priscilla, leading to her removal and Roger's appointment as PR.
- In 2007 the Baillargeons filed for reformation of the deed to reflect the entire 9.69-acre parcel; the proceedings were consolidated with Roger's Improvident Transfers of Title Act claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ITTA claim is time-barred | Daigle argues the 2007 ITTA counterclaim relates back to 2004 and/or tolling during Priscilla's tenure as PR, so it is timely. | Baillargeons contend the six-year statute applies and the 2007 counterclaim did not relate back. | Yes; the ITTA claim is time-barred; no relation back. |
| Whether the deed should be reformed for mutual mistake | Daigle contends the parties intended 9.69 acres; the deed incorrectly described only three acres. | Baillargeons contend the deed was valid as written and no mutual mistake occurred. | Yes; reformation granted for mutual mistake of fact. |
| Whether joint accounts passed outside the Estate | Daigle argues the side agreement and lack of survivorship intended Priscilla should not receive funds during Dolores's lifetime. | Baillargeons assert true joint accounts with right of survivorship; funds belong to surviving account holder unless contrary intent proven by clear and convincing evidence. | Yes; accounts were joint with right of survivorship; funds passed outside the Estate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Miller, 960 A.2d 1140 (Me. 2008) (ITTA accrual and six-year limitations guidance)
- Lietz v. Berry, 543 A.2d 367 (Me. 1988) (clear and convincing standard; appellate review of factual findings)
- Bryan v. Breyer, 665 A.2d 1020 (Me. 1995) (mutual mistake of fact; merger by deed does not bar reformation)
- Strout v. Gammon, 629 A.2d 43 (Me. 1993) (mutual mistake of fact required to reform deeds)
- Estate of Fournier, 966 A.2d 885 (Me. 2009) (credibility and weight of witnesses in bench trial on factual findings)
- Rainey v. Langen, 998 A.2d 342 (Me. 2010) (summary judgment standard and de novo review; relation-back considerations)