Read case 6.4, Sparrow v. Demonico. Do you agree with the courts decision? Does public policy require that medical evidence be presented to support all claims of incapacity? FACT SUMMARY A family dispute over ownership of what had been the fanmily home in Woburn, Massachusetts. prompted Frances M. Sparrow (Sparrow) to file a complaint in a state trial court against her sister. Susan Demonico, and Susan's husband. David D. Demonico (Demonicos). Prior to trial. the parties resolved their differences by eniering into a settlement agreement reached during voluntary niediation. However, when Sparrow agreed with the Demonicos, ruling that the contract was void because it may have been the product of an emotionally overwrought state of mind and Susan was not able to understand in a reasonable manner the nature and consequences of her actions. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and issued an order enforcing the settlement agreement. The Demonicos appealed again and argued that Susan's withdrawal symptoms from the antidepressant drug Zoloft rendered her unable to act reasonably at the time of the agreement. They cited her behavior, such as the slurring of words, crying. altempted to oblain a court order to enforce the agreement, the Demonicos argued that the contract was void because Susan Demonico lacked the capacity lo enier into the agreement. A trial court and having to leave the room, as evidence that she was suffering from a mental breakdown on the day of the mediation. Sparrow countered that however upset Susan was during the mediation, it didn't rise to the level of incapacitation required under the law and that the Demonicos had produced no medical evidence or experts to support their claim about it is permanent, progressive, or degenerative: but, without medical evidence or expert testimony that the mental condition interfered with the party's understanding of the transaction, or her ability to act reasonably in relation to it, the evidence will not be sufficient to support a conclusion of incapacity. . . [T]here was no expert or medical testimony to explain the effect of Susan's experiences or behavior on her ability to understand the agreement, to appreciate what was happening, or to comprehend the reasonableness of the settlement terms or the consequences to her of authorizing the settlement. Without such medical evidence, there was no the Zoloft. SYNOPSISs OF DECIsION AND OPINION The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in favor of Sparrow. Although the court ruled that a party could establish incapacity to contract without proof of a mental condition that is permanent, degenerative, progressive, or long standing, they also held that any finding of incapacity must still be supported by medical evidence. According to the court, the proper inquiry as to the capacity to contract focuses on a party's understanding or conduct only at the time of the disputed transaction. In this case, the Demonicos failed to pres.

1. Read case 6.4, Sparrow v. Demonico. Do you agree with the courts decision? Does public policy
require that medical evidence be presented to support all claims of incapacity?
FACT SUMMARY A family dispute over ownership of what had been the fanmily home in
Woburn, Massachusetts. prompted Frances M. Sparrow (Sparrow) to file a complaint in a state
trial court against her sister. Susan Demonico, and Susan's husband. David D. Demonico
(Demonicos). Prior to trial. the parties resolved their differences by eniering into a settlement
agreement reached during voluntary niediation. However, when Sparrow agreed with the
Demonicos, ruling that the contract was void because it may have been the product of an
emotionally overwrought state of mind and Susan was not able to understand in a reasonable
manner the nature and consequences of her actions. The appellate court reversed the trial court's
decision and issued an order enforcing the settlement agreement. The Demonicos appealed again
and argued that Susan's withdrawal symptoms from the antidepressant drug Zoloft rendered her
unable to act reasonably at the time of the agreement. They cited her behavior, such as the
slurring of words, crying. altempted to oblain a court order to enforce the agreement, the
Demonicos argued that the contract was void because Susan Demonico lacked the capacity lo
enier into the agreement. A trial court and having to leave the room, as evidence that she was
suffering from a mental breakdown on the day of the mediation. Sparrow countered that however
upset Susan was during the mediation, it didn't rise to the level of incapacitation required under
the law and that the Demonicos had produced no medical evidence or experts to support their
claim about it is permanent, progressive, or degenerative: but, without medical evidence or
expert testimony that the mental condition interfered with the party's understanding of the
transaction, or her ability to act reasonably in relation to it, the evidence will not be sufficient to
support a conclusion of incapacity. . . [T]here was no expert or medical testimony to explain the
effect of Susan's experiences or behavior on her ability to understand the agreement, to
appreciate what was happening, or to comprehend the reasonableness of the settlement terms or
the consequences to her of authorizing the settlement. Without such medical evidence, there was
no the Zoloft. SYNOPSISs OF DECIsION AND OPINION The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts ruled in favor of Sparrow. Although the court ruled that a party could establish
incapacity to contract without proof of a mental condition that is permanent, degenerative,
progressive, or long standing, they also held that any finding of incapacity must still be
supported by medical evidence. According to the court, the proper inquiry as to the capacity to
contract focuses on a party's understanding or conduct only at the time of the disputed
transaction. In this case, the Demonicos failed to present medical evidence regarding a diagnosis
that would have required her to take Zoloft, or the effect, if any, that ceasing to take the
medication would have had on her medical or mental condition. basis to conclude that Susan

2. lacked the capacity to contract."