Ortelere v. Teachers' Retirement Board of New York

New York Court of Appeals · Contracts

ContractsMental incapacityRetirement benefits electionsmental incompetencycontractual capacityvoidable contractscognitive testvolitional incapacity

Facts

Grace Ortelere, a 60-year-old public schoolteacher on leave for mental illness and suffering from psychosis and cerebral arteriosclerosis, had previously selected retirement-related benefits that protected her husband as beneficiary. On February 11, 1965, while still under psychiatric care, she executed a new retirement application choosing the maximum lifetime allowance with nothing payable after death and also withdrew the maximum cash amount from the system. She died less than two months later, causing the entire reserve to fall in and eliminating any payment to her husband under the new election. Her psychiatrist testified that throughout his treatment she was never mentally competent and could not make decisions of any kind, even though she could display cognitive awareness of the available retirement options.

Issue

May an otherwise irrevocable retirement-benefits election be avoided for mental incapacity where the member understood the transaction cognitively, but because of serious mental illness may have been unable to make a voluntary or reasonable choice, and the retirement system had reason to know of that condition?

Rule

Contracts and exercises of contractual rights by a person not adjudicated insane are voidable for mental incapacity. The traditional cognitive test is too restrictive; avoidance may also be available when, by reason of mental illness or defect, the person is unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction, provided the other party knew or had reason to know of the condition. If the other party lacks such knowledge and the agreement is on fair terms, avoidance may be limited where performance or changed circumstances make it inequitable.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Dana Mercer, a city librarian, has been on documented psychiatric leave for psychosis. She meets with the municipal pension office, accurately recites the differences among payout options, and signs a form revoking a prior survivor annuity in favor of a higher lifetime-only payment. Her psychiatrist later testifies that, although she understood the form intellectually, her illness made her unable to make a voluntary, reasonable choice about the election.

If Dana dies soon afterward and her executor seeks to avoid the election, which is the strongest argument for avoidance under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority adopted a modern rule broader than the old cognitive test. A transaction may be voidable where, by reason of mental illness, the person was unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction, even if she understood it intellectually, so long as the other party knew or had reason to know of the condition. The majority rejected the view that cognitive awareness alone is conclusive. (Derived from Ortelere v. Teachers' Retirement Board of New York (n.d.).)