Whether substantial evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that clear and convincing evidence overcame the presumption of Gholson's competency when she signed the listing agreement and addendum.
Holding
Yes. The record substantially supported the finding that Gholson lacked the mental capacity to enter the agreement and its addendum.
Reasoning
New Mexico presumes every person competent. The party challenging capacity ordinarily must rebut that presumption by clear and convincing evidence. The governing question is whether, at the time of the transaction, the person could understand in a reasonable manner the nature and effect of the act. Although capacity must be assessed as of the date of execution, evidence of the person's condition before and after that date may illuminate her condition at the relevant time. When a prior, general, and permanent incompetency has been established, it is presumed to continue unless the party relying on the instrument proves a lucid interval.
The evidence permitted the trial court to find a longstanding and progressive decline rather than an isolated episode of confusion. Phillips and Gholson's granddaughter, Louise Loomis, had observed her closely for years. They described increasing confusion, inability to manage bills and appointments, memory failures, difficulty communicating and handling ordinary transactions, and worsening symptoms after Gholson broke her foot shortly before she executed the documents. Their observations supported the finding that her impairment was continuous and that she had no lucid interval when she signed.
The transaction itself also supported the district court's assessment. Gholson guessed at the property's value, left essential deal terms unresolved, received no assistance from family or counsel, and later testified that she could not remember signing the addendum because she could not think sequentially at that time. The court was entitled to consider her physical and mental condition, the improvidence or incompleteness of the transaction, and the circumstances surrounding execution along with the other evidence.
The psychiatric testimony was conflicting. Dr. Farber, Heights Realty's expert, never examined Gholson and believed the available material was insufficient to establish incompetency. Dr. Muldawer examined her, reviewed records, and consulted relatives; he concluded, within reasonable medical probability, that she was incompetent on the signing date and did not fully understand the agreement's terms. The Court observed that the medical evidence alone would not defeat the presumption, but Muldawer's opinion reinforced the substantial lay testimony from people with extensive opportunities to observe Gholson.
Heights Realty relied on broker Pat Eichenberg's testimony that Gholson appeared alert and understood the documents, including noticing a misspelling in her name. But evaluating that testimony against the contrary evidence was the trial judge's task. On appeal, the Supreme Court does not reweigh conflicting evidence or reassess witness credibility. Because the record as a whole substantially supported the findings, the Court treated the clear-and-convincing determination as implicit in those findings and affirmed the judgment.