## Facts

- Sandra Russo owned approximately 10–12 acres in Scarborough, Maine, including a small residence that served as her homestead.
- Russo had a long history of serious mental illness, repeated psychiatric hospitalizations, depression, suicide attempts, substance abuse, and was later diagnosed as manic depressive.
- Russo’s neighbor, Marlis Goldschmidt, knew of Russo’s mental health problems and, after Russo’s release from hospitalization, pressed Russo with an urgent request to purchase part of Russo’s land.
- Russo did not consult an attorney, broker, or appraiser and relied solely on Goldschmidt’s advice regarding the transaction.
- Russo conveyed part of the land to Goldschmidt and the remainder to James and Daniel Miller (through their partnership, Jaydan Associates), to whom Goldschmidt introduced Russo.
- The transaction was structured to allow Russo to remain in her home as a tenant at will on the conveyed land.
- The consideration paid to Russo was significantly below the property’s fair market value, and the purchasers stood to realize substantial economic benefit.
- Evidence at trial showed Goldschmidt secretly acted as an agent for Miller in inducing the sale and used her relationship with Russo to secure the transaction.
- About six months after the conveyance, Miller sought to terminate Russo’s tenancy, leading Russo to sue for rescission; the buyers filed a forcible entry and detainer action asserting Russo was a tenant at will served with a notice to quit.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported setting aside Russo’s conveyance of her homestead on the ground of undue influence attributable to the buyers through their agent.

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment after a bench trial.
- The Court held the record supported findings that Russo was particularly susceptible to pressure, that Goldschmidt exploited a position of confidence while acting for the buyers, and that the resulting bargain was unfair.
- The conveyance was rescinded, and the related forcible entry and detainer matter was remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Russo.

## Legal Principles

- A conveyance may be rescinded for undue influence when a vulnerable party’s susceptibility is knowingly exploited through overreaching associated with a relationship of trust or confidence.
- Undue influence may be inferred from a combination of the grantor’s weakened mental condition, absence of independent advice, pressure exerted by a trusted confidant, and a substantially unequal or unfair transaction.
- A buyer may be held responsible for undue influence exercised by another acting as the buyer’s undisclosed agent in procuring the conveyance.
- Appellate review defers to trial-court credibility determinations and factual findings; findings supported by the record will not be disturbed as clearly erroneous.

## Conclusion

The court upheld rescission of the land transfer because the seller’s documented mental vulnerability, the neighbor’s concealed agency for the buyers, the lack of independent advice, and the inadequacy of consideration supported a fact-bound determination that the conveyance was procured through undue influence.


Russo v. Miller, 559 A.2d 354 (Me. 1989)