Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 33, § 1023 (2026)

Civil action; relief available

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Civil action. A civil action may be brought to obtain relief under this chapter by an elderly dependent person, that person's legal representative or the personal representative of the estate of an elderly dependent person.

[PL 2003, c. 236, §2 (AMD).]

2. Relief available; protected transfers and executions. When a court finds that a transfer of property or execution of a guaranty was the result of undue influence, it shall grant appropriate relief enabling the elderly dependent person to avoid the transfer or execution, including the rescission or reformation of a deed or other instrument, the imposition of a constructive trust on property or an order enjoining use of or entry on property or commanding the return of property. The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to be paid by the person who exercised undue influence over the elderly dependent person or by any transferee who paid less than full consideration, as found by the court. When the court finds that undue influence is a good and valid defense to a transferee's suit on a contract to transfer the property or a suit of a person who benefits from the execution of a guaranty on that guaranty, the court shall refuse to enforce the transfer or guaranty.

Relief obtained or granted under this section may not in any way affect or limit the right, title and interest of good faith purchasers, mortgagees, holders of security interests or other 3rd parties who obtain an interest in the transferred property for value after its transfer from the elderly dependent person. Relief obtained or granted under this section may not affect any mortgage deed to the extent of value given by the mortgagee.

[PL 2025, c. 279, §1 (AMD).]

3. Statute of limitations. The limitations imposed by Title 14, section 752, apply to all actions brought under this chapter.

[PL 1987, c. 699, §1 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1987, c. 699, §1 (NEW). PL 1989, c. 238, §§2,4 (AMD). PL 2003, c. 236, §2 (AMD). PL 2025, c. 279, §1 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1995–2019 · leading case: Baillargeon v. Est. of Dolores A. Daigle, 2010 ME 127 (Me. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Baillargeon v. Est. of Dolores A. Daigle, 2010 ME 127 (Me. 2010). · cites it 3× “See 33 M.R.S. § 1023(1) (2009). Because Roger failed to raise this argument in his brief, the issue is not preserved and we do not address it further.”

Est. of Miller, 960 A.2d 1140 (Me. 2008). “13, 2003) (codified at 33 M.R.S. § 1023(1) (2007)). . The record clearly reflects that Gray was aware of the fact that he had been added to the account almost from the time of the account’s creation.”

Keybank Nat'l Ass'n v. Sargent, 2000 ME 153 (Me. 2000). “” See 33 M.R.S.A. § 1023(2) (1999). Because the ITTA offers no avenue of obtaining relief from Hart, that claim was properly dismissed.”

Est. of Sylvester v. Benjamin, 2001 ME 48 (Me. 2001). “[¶ 18] The improvident transfer statute continues to allow heirs or devisees to seek common law remedies, as noted in 33 M.R.S.A. § 1023. 7 Those who believe that undue influence has been exerted upon a deceased elderly individual may bring a common law claim of undue influence,…”

First Union Nat'l Bank v. Curtis, 882 A.2d 796 (Me. 2005). · cites it 2× “mortgagees,” 33 M.R.S.A. § 1023(2), Crossland’s mortgage was exempt from the Act.”

Bragdon v. Drew, 658 A.2d 666 (Me. 1995). “33 M.R.S.A. § 1023 (Supp.1994) provides that "When a court finds that a transfer of property was the result of undue influence, it shall grant appropriate relief .”

Belanger v. Yorke (Me. Super. Ct 2019). · cites it 2× “He transferred title in real estate to her for, as discussed above, zero consideration, and was categorically not represented by independent counsel.”

Douglass v. Graffam (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “5 For the reasons set forth above, Margaret's motion for summary judgment dismissing Eleanor's common law claim for breach of fiduciary duty has been granted, and Eleanor is only entitled to equitable relief on her remaining claim for breach of fiduciary duty under the Probate…”

Davis v. Grover (Me. Super. Ct 2002). ““When the elderly dependent person successfully raises the presumption of undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence and when the transferee fails to rebut the presumption, the elderly dependent person shall be entitled to avoid the transfer and be entitled to the relief…”

Breen v. Lucas (Me. Super. Ct 2005). “See 33 M.R.S.A. § 1023(2) (2004). Given these aspects of the law, it is clear that since Gilman was not a party to the challenged transfer, he can provide the Plaintiff with no relief, regardless of his alleged role in effectuating it.”

Comber v. McAllister (Me. Super. Ct 2000). “” 33 M.R.S.A. § 1023(2). In light of the court’s findings and conclusions, the court will enter judgment and an order of rescission with regard to the last two transactions.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 33, § 1023(1) — 3 cases

Est. of Miller, 960 A.2d 1140 (Me. 2008). “13, 2003) (codified at 33 M.R.S. § 1023(1) (2007)). . The record clearly reflects that Gray was aware of the fact that he had been added to the account almost from the time of the account’s creation.”

Baillargeon v. Est. of Dolores A. Daigle, 2010 ME 127 (Me. 2010). “See 33 M.R.S. § 1023(1) (2009). Because Roger failed to raise this argument in his brief, the issue is not preserved and we do not address it further.”

Belanger v. Yorke (Me. Super. Ct 2019). “He transferred title in real estate to her for, as discussed above, zero consideration, and was categorically not represented by independent counsel.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 33, § 1023(2) — 5 cases

Keybank Nat'l Ass'n v. Sargent, 2000 ME 153 (Me. 2000). “” See 33 M.R.S.A. § 1023(2) (1999). Because the ITTA offers no avenue of obtaining relief from Hart, that claim was properly dismissed.”

First Union Nat'l Bank v. Curtis, 882 A.2d 796 (Me. 2005). “mortgagees,” 33 M.R.S.A. § 1023(2), Crossland’s mortgage was exempt from the Act.”

Douglass v. Graffam (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “5 For the reasons set forth above, Margaret's motion for summary judgment dismissing Eleanor's common law claim for breach of fiduciary duty has been granted, and Eleanor is only entitled to equitable relief on her remaining claim for breach of fiduciary duty under the Probate…”

Breen v. Lucas (Me. Super. Ct 2005). “See 33 M.R.S.A. § 1023(2) (2004). Given these aspects of the law, it is clear that since Gilman was not a party to the challenged transfer, he can provide the Plaintiff with no relief, regardless of his alleged role in effectuating it.”

Comber v. McAllister (Me. Super. Ct 2000). “” 33 M.R.S.A. § 1023(2). In light of the court’s findings and conclusions, the court will enter judgment and an order of rescission with regard to the last two transactions.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 33, § 1023(3) — 1 case

Baillargeon v. Est. of Dolores A. Daigle, 2010 ME 127 (Me. 2010). “See 33 M.R.S. § 1023(1) (2009). Because Roger failed to raise this argument in his brief, the issue is not preserved and we do not address it further.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.