St. Louis v. Wilkinson Law Offices, P.C.
2012 ME 116
| Me. | 2012Background
- Theresa and Dale St. Louis pursued a commercial loan from Silver Hill Financial for a property; Northstar Mortgage broker assisted and attended closing.
- Closing on December 6, 2007 occurred at the St. Louises' home; Wilkinson Law acted as settlement agent for the closing.
- Funding Instructions provided to the St. Louises included a Funding Details section stating a 5% prepayment penalty if prepaid during the first 5 years.
- Dale believed the 5% penalty equated to about $13,000, based on representations by the broker and at least one discussion during closing.
- The St. Louises signed the closing documents without reading them; the promissory note’s prepayment penalty differed from the Funding Details.
- In early 2009 the actual prepayment penalty was $100,473; the St. Louises sued Wilkinson Law for negligent misrepresentation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Wilkinson Law negligently misrepresent the prepayment penalty? | St. Louises allege the closing agent read and recited the Funding Details, misrepresenting terms. | Wilkinson Law merely recited accurate information from the Funding Details; no misrepresentation. | No misrepresentation found; judgment for Wilkinson Law affirmed. |
| Did the closing agent expand the misrepresentation through discussion at closing? | Attorney participated in discussions that amplified the misrepresentation of penalties. | Record shows no such expansion; any comment about standard penalties was not a misrepresentation. | No expansion found; no basis for negligence finding. |
| Was Wilkinson Law required to disclose all terms beyond the Funding Details given its closing role? | Closing agents owe heightened duty given public importance of closings. | This record shows the attorney disclosed only terms in the Funding Details and did not affirm what documents contained. | Record supports that attorney disclosed only Funding Details terms; no duty breach established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. Rideout, 568 A.2d 829 (Me. 1990) (negligent misrepresentation as relied-upon information fault)
- Rand v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 2003 ME 122 (Me. 2003) (elements of misrepresentation; reasonable care standard)
- McCarthy v. U.S.I. Corp., 678 A.2d 48 (Me. 1996) (justifiable reliance and fact-specific inquiry)
- Devine v. Roche Biomedical Labs., Inc., 637 A.2d 441 (Me. 1994) (reliance and misrepresentation considerations in tort)
- Nightingale v. Leach, 2004 ME 22 (Me. 2004) (standard of review for Rule 50(d) judgments and findings)
- Wyman v. Osteopathic Hosp. of Me., Inc., 493 A.2d 330 (Me. 1985) (evidence review under clear error standard)
- Handrahan v. Malenko, 2011 ME 15 (Me. 2011) (clear error standard and burdens of proof on appeal)
- Westleigh v. Conger, 2000 ME 134 (Me. 2000) (proof standards and record-based affirmations)