BUS Mod 3

Wiliamson, an alcoholic who was threatened with foreclosure on her house entered into a contract to sell it for $17,000. Smith an attorney who had read about the foreclosure in the newspaper and who knew about Williamson’s drinking problem contacted Williamson and assured her that he could resolve her problem. Smith did have the sale of the house overturned. The court found that Williamson was intoxicated at the time of the sale and was paid only $1,700 thinking she has received $17,000. To ensure payment of the legal fees, Williamson again signed a mortgage contract, giving Smith temporary ownership of the house. Because Williamson refused to pay the mortgage, Smith had to bring a foreclosure action (sell the property to get his money) on the mortgage. Williamson objected to the foreclosure proceedings on the grounds that she was severely intoxicated (and that she had a history of alcoholism) and that she did not understand what she was signing. She claimed that this lack of understanding made the mortgage she gave to Smith void. Was Williamson’s intoxication sufficient to void the mortgage? (Smith v Williamson, 429 So.2d 598)