Opinion ID: 887368
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Hearer's Damages

Text: ¶ 29 Frieda's reliance upon Gary's and Jackie's false representations about their financial condition injured Frieda financially at least in the amount of the $65,000.00 that she waived. ¶ 30 Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the District Court was correct in determining that all nine elements of fraud were established by a preponderance of the evidence in this case. ¶ 31 Under Montana's statutory law, consent is an essential element of a contract and consent of the parties to a contract must be free, mutual, and communicated by each to the other. Sections 28-2-102 and 301, MCA. Furthermore, § 28-2-401(1)(c), MCA, provides that consent is not real or free when obtained through fraud. And, § 28-2-1711(1), MCA, provides that a party to a contract may rescind that contract if the consent of the party rescinding was obtained through fraud. In the case sub judice, we conclude that Frieda's consent to the waiver-of-interest document was not free because it was obtained by fraud. Thus, Judy, as personal representative for Frieda's estate could rescind that document. See In re Estate of Long (Ind.Ct.App.2004), 804 N.E.2d 1176 (holding that the personal representative stands in the shoes of the decedent). ¶ 32 Accordingly, we hold that the District Court did not err when it determined that the waiver-of-interest document could be rescinded because it was obtained by fraud.