1. Legal Cognizance
3. Briefly describe the facts.
The Plaintiff, Ken Rea, and some other family were taking care of their sick mother who then moved in with her son, the defendant, Larry Paulson, his wife, and her child. Paulson encouraged his sick mother to put her home in Rainier in his name so that the state could not take it from her. The sick mother had tried to out the home in Rea’s name before, however, he told her it wasn’t necessary because they would not take her home from her. During the time that their mother was sick, Paulson became power of attorney and a new deed was outlined. The home was later sold or the ownership was transferred to Rita Brady, from what I can tell, by Paulson after the death of his mother. Rea brought action to set aside the deed outlined by his brother. A cross claim was filed by Rita Brady for damages in the event that he won the suit against Paulson.
1. Which facts were key to the outcome? The facts are that Paulson outlined a new deed for his ailing mother, who had a deed already stating that they would be treated equally.
2. Legal issue:
3. What legal issue(s) does this case illustrate (i.e. why is this case in the chapter)? This case covers Mistake.
4. What are all of the elements of the main legal rule that this case illustrates? For instance, if the case is about undue influence, list ALL of the elements that the court in this case said had to be proven by the plaintiff. They have to prove that there was an erroneous belief that facts were true.
Repeat 2. for each issue raised. (For example, a case may discuss 1. Whether there is an implied-in-fact contract, and II. Whether the UCC or common law applied. If so, you will repeat 2. for each of these two issues.)
1. Expand Perspective, Gain Interpersonal Understanding, and Critically Assess Implications
2. Prevailing party’s point of view:
3. What legal arguments were made by the prevailing party? Prevailing party’s issue is the new deed which led to the selling of the mother’s home to Brady.
4. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and ethical principles would support a ruling for the prevailing party? That they had told their mother putting the home in another name wasn’t necessary and that her original deed had them treated equally.
1. What were the probable motivations behind the prevailing party’s actions leading up to the dispute? After the dispute? The motivations were the new deed that led to the home being sold.
Repeat 3. for each and every issue in the case.
4. Losing party’s point of view:
5. What legal arguments were made by the losing party? Essentially they argued that the plaintiff assumed or bore the risk of the mistake.
6. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and ethical principles would support a ruling for the losing party? Had they agreed to the new deed this would have ended differently.
7. What were the probable motivations behind the losing party’s actions leading up to the dispute? After the dispute? They just wanted the money from the home perhaps.
Repeat 4. for each and every issue in the case.
5. Judge’s point of view:
6. How did the court rule on each argument? The judge ruled in favor of Rea, the plaintiff.
7. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and ethical principles did the court use to support its ruling? That they found no reason that the plaintiff would bear or assume the risk.
8. What were the probable motivations behind the judge’s decision? That there was no reason that the plaintiff bore the risk.
Repeat 5. for each ruling made by the judge.
1. Find Recent Developments and Diverse Theories, Synthesize, and Compare
2. Different Rules: Pose the question “What if the court adopted a different legal rule?” Had the court said that the last person taking care of the mother had the right to assume power of attorney and essentially “what they said and did goes,” the case would have been ruled on differently.
3. Search the web for other articles to refer to in your article or call an attorney or business professional who may have experience with this type of issue. Write a brief one-paragraph summary of this case or article: I actually found a mutual mistake case brief on www.lawnix.com . The case is Wood V. Boynton. The facts were that Wood, the plaintiff, sold Boynton, the defendant, a gem they both believed to be topaz. Boynton only paid Wood $1 for the gem. Boynton discovered the gem was actually a diamond worth $700 dollars. Wood made an offer of $1.10 to purchase the stone back from Boynton, which was refused. Wood took Boynton to court but the judge ruled in favor of Boynton, citing that it was a mutual mistake and the gem could not be rescinded without fraud. Meaning that the only way he could regain ownership of the gem is to prove that Boynton committed fraud in the purchase.
1. Ponder and reflect to compare this case to recent news and cases. This is the really cool part. You will be thinking like a legally astute manager, owner, or professional as you read, analyze and compare cases to draw your conclusions. Some neat ideas to help with your analysis: If the outcomes of the recent cases you found are different, can you make sense of the different outcomes? Are there different legal standards that make for different outcomes? Is there a trend leaning more in favor of a plaintiff or defendant’s position? Are the outcomes the same or different simply because the facts are similar or dissimilar? What accounts for the same or different results? Write your thoughts here: The two cases here are not very similar. I can, however, reflect on this case. I agree with the judge’s ruling in this case because I can understand that this was a mutual error. It would not be fair to take the gem away from Boynton because of something he found out after the fact. While it is a hard hit for Wood it was no one’s fault. I can make sense of the different outcomes here. The plaintiff in this case did bear the risk here, because he sold the gem before he researched into it. Had he done research about the gem he would likely have known that it was a diamond.
1. Creative, Application and Critical Thinking Questions
2. Your point of view of the case in the book:
3. Do you agree or disagree with the actual outcome? Why or why not? Because I did not get to read the entire summary of the case, just what I could find, I agree mostly with the ruling. I feel this way because I think that the plaintiff had been taking care of his mother before his brother moved her in with him. He had assumed the responsibility of her caregiver, along with his wife and siblings, and he had informed her that she did not need to put the home in any other name. I do feel that as power of attorney Paulson should have been more ethical in his decisions. He was using the money she received for her health benefit and also using her credit cards to purchase personal items for himself.
4. Change it up: Pose the question “What if the facts were different?” Create changes to the facts that would probably result in a different outcome of the case and, using critical thinking and legal reasoning, tell why your change in facts would make a difference.
5. Relate the case to your own experience, if applicable, or to the experience someone else has shared with you.
6. How will you apply the lessons from this case to your future career? I will use this case in my future to make sure that something like this does not happen to anyone, acquaintances or clients perhaps. I would not want their wants to slip through the cracks because of health issues.
1. Write recommendations to avoid future legal problems and that best suit the objectives of a firm or company in your chosen career field. I would recommend that any family members of a sick parent always make the decisions about the parent together and for the benefit of the parent and with the wishes of the parent.