## Facts

- George D. Whitten and Shirley C. Greeley-Shaw had an intermittent, extramarital romantic relationship for roughly eight years.
- Whitten advanced $64,000 to enable Greeley-Shaw to purchase a home in Harpswell, Maine, near Whitten’s vacation home.
- The transaction was documented by a promissory note and a mortgage deed, initially in the name of Whitten’s attorney and later assigned to Whitten.
- Greeley-Shaw signed the note and mortgage but claimed she did not understand what she signed, did not know she owed annual payments, and believed the home was effectively a gift connected to their relationship.
- Whitten testified the money was always a loan and that he and his attorney made the loan nature clear; he used his attorney’s name to avoid embarrassment.
- Trial evidence included testimony and a deposition from an attorney involved in the closing; the trial court found Greeley-Shaw understood the documents and voluntarily undertook the obligations.
- During the relationship, Greeley-Shaw drafted a one-page writing that Whitten signed, listing promises by Whitten (payments, repairs, medical support, annual trip and jewelry, periodic visits and calls).
- The writing contained only one express obligation by Greeley-Shaw: she would not call Whitten’s homes or offices without his prior permission.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in entering judgment on the promissory note and ordering statutory foreclosure given Greeley-Shaw’s claim that she misunderstood the note and mortgage.
2. Whether the one-page writing signed by Whitten constituted an enforceable contract supporting Greeley-Shaw’s counterclaim.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the foreclosure judgment for Whitten.
- The court upheld the trial court’s finding that Greeley-Shaw knew the nature of the note and mortgage and entered the loan transaction voluntarily.
- The court affirmed denial of Greeley-Shaw’s counterclaim, holding the one-page writing was not an enforceable contract due to lack of consideration.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review defers to trial-level factual findings when supported by competent evidence; a finding that a party understood and voluntarily executed loan documents will be upheld if supported by the record.
- A promise is enforceable only if supported by consideration that is bargained for—i.e., something sought by the promisor in exchange for the promise.
- A promise or condition inserted by a promisee to supply “something in return,” without showing it was actually sought by the promisor as the price of the promisor’s commitment, does not constitute consideration.
- Personal or relationship-based assurances, without a bargained-for exchange, do not create a binding contract.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed foreclosure on the $64,000 note because the record supported the finding that Greeley-Shaw knowingly and voluntarily executed the loan documents, and it rejected enforcement of the one-page relationship-related writing because it lacked bargained-for consideration.


Whitten v. Greeley-Shaw, 520 A.2d 1307 (Me. 1987)