## Facts

- Patricia A. McCollor and Frederick J. McCollor, Sr. were married and owned a home in Waterville, Maine.
- By 2006–2008, Frederick Sr. suffered serious illness and functional decline, and Patricia was his primary caregiver.
- Their son, Frederick J. (“John”) McCollor, Jr., assisted with transportation and household tasks and became involved in his parents’ finances; Patricia relied on him for financial guidance.
- On October 20, 2008, John told Patricia the home was at risk of being taken to pay medical bills (including through MaineCare) and that title needed to be transferred to the children to avoid losing the home.
- That day, John brought his parents to a title company, where Patricia and Frederick Sr. executed a deed conveying the home to John and their daughter, Cheryl Stanton, as joint tenants.
- The trial court found Patricia and Frederick Sr. did not receive independent legal advice regarding the transfer and that the transaction occurred during a period of heightened vulnerability and reliance on John.
- Additional transactions gave John control over aspects of his parents’ financial affairs and personal property.
- Patricia later sued John and Cheryl, seeking relief under the Improvident Transfers of Title Act (ITTA) and common-law theories.

## Issues

1. Whether the home transfer was an “improvident transfer” under Maine’s ITTA based on dependency or a confidential relationship and lack of adequate consideration, triggering a presumption of undue influence or coercion.
2. Whether John and Cheryl rebutted any ITTA presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
3. Whether the evidence supported findings of common-law undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from a confidential relationship.
4. Whether the trial court erred in awarding damages in addition to setting aside the deed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the judgment for Patricia.
- The court upheld application of the ITTA, including findings that Patricia and Frederick Sr. were dependent on John and/or in a confidential relationship with him at the time of transfer.
- The court agreed the deed transfer of the home was improvident, including because it was essentially without consideration and not shown to be in the parents’ best interests.
- The court held John and Cheryl failed to rebut the statutory presumption of undue influence or coercion by clear and convincing evidence.
- The court affirmed findings of common-law undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty.
- The court affirmed the damages award as supported by the evidence and within the trial court’s discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Under Maine’s Improvident Transfers of Title Act, a major transfer of real estate or substantial personal property by an elderly or dependent person to a person on whom the transferor depends for care or support, or to a person in a confidential relationship with the transferor, creates a rebuttable presumption that the transfer resulted from undue influence or coercion.
- The transferee bears the burden to rebut the ITTA presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
- “Dependency” and a “confidential relationship” may be established by proof that a transferor placed trust and confidence in the transferee and that a disparity of influence existed, including reliance for transportation, financial decision-making, and understanding of public-benefit programs.
- A transfer may be “improvident” when it conveys significant property for little or no consideration without demonstrated benefit to the transferor, especially where the transferor lacks independent advice.
- Statutory relief under the ITTA can coexist with common-law remedies; the same facts may support undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty where a trusted family member uses a position of confidence to obtain a benefit at the transferor’s expense.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed rescission of a deed transferring a family home to the parties’ children and affirmed related damages, holding that the parents’ dependency and confidential relationship with their son triggered the ITTA presumption of undue influence, the children did not rebut it by clear and convincing evidence, and the same conduct supported common-law undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty.


McCollor v. McCollor, 87 A.3d 761 (Me. 2014)