Opinion ID: 2079230
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Construction of the Mortgage

Text: The trial court found that the support mortgage in this case was drafted by plaintiff's attorney, and finding the instrument ambiguous, the presiding justice construed it most strongly against plaintiff. Although this rule of construction is commonly accepted in commercial and business transactions, see, e.g., Hills v. Gardiner Savings Institution, Me., 309 A.2d 877 (1973), we agree with plaintiff that its application in this case is inappropriate. The instant support mortgage is not a contract of adhesion nor do the circumstances require construction against the drafter in order to meet the expectations of the party in the inferior bargaining position. Dairy Farm Leasing Co., Inc. v. Hartley, Me., 395 A.2d 1135, 1139, n.3 (1978). In fact defendants actively participated in the drafting of the documents, refusing to sign them until they had been redrafted to meet their specifications. Moreover, a support mortgage is not an ordinary contract which requires application of the rule of strict construction against the drafter in order to ascertain the intent of the agreement. The intent, implicit in the nature of the agreement, has been aptly described by a Rhode Island court: One under stress of infirmity or age surrenders his property to another for relief from care and anxiety, and receives in return an assurance of support . . . . [A] feeble party has fully performed his part of the contract in the hope of security and quiet. Grant v. Bell, 26 R.I. 288, 58 A. 951 (1904). To give effect, therefore, to the unique purpose of a support mortgage, contracts of this nature should be liberally construed in favor of the elderly grantors. Tuttle v. Burgett's Adm'r, 53 Ohio St. 498, 42 N.E. 427, 429 (1895); see also Strock v. MacNicholl, 196 Va. 734, 85 S.E.2d 263, 269 (1955). The rule of construction utilized by the trial court must necessarily have tinctured its evaluation of the evidence presented in this case. The court's order reveals that in determining whether there was a breach of the agreement the trial justice focused solely on whether the physical maintenance requirements of the support mortgage had been met. In considering agreements of this kind, many jurisdictions have recognized that in addition to the explicit promise of physical well being there is also an implicit promise of peace, harmony, and emotional well being: In addition to the physical necessities, the grantor has the right to expect reasonable personal care and the courtesies and kindness usually obtaining between individuals that have the same ties of blood or association in families of similar station as those of the contracting parties. According to the view ordinarily taken, the agreement of a grantee to furnish his grantor support, especially where the parties expect to reside together, is to be construed as contemplating not merely physical necessities, but kindness, and personal care and attention. Strock v. MacNicholl, 196 Va. 734, 85 S.E.2d 263, 268 (1955) (quoting Note, 112 A.L.R. 670, 708). See also, Payne v. Winters, 366 Pa. 299, 77 A.2d 407 (1951); Brinkley v. Patton, 194 Okl. 244, 149 P.2d 261 (1944); Grant v. Bell, 58 A. at 951-52. The liberal construction in favor of the grantor which we have mandated requires that any evaluation of the evidence to determine whether a breach of the support mortgage has occurred must employ this broader view. We therefore remand this case to Superior Court for a reconsideration of the evidence under the more expansive construction that we now announce.