|
State v. Floyd Young, Jr.
Download as PDF
Wordperfect 3
Back to Opinions page
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 1998 ME 107
Docket: Kno-96-680
Argued: November 13, 1997
Decided: May 13, 1998
Panel: ROBERTS, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, LIPEZ, and SAUFLEY, JJ.
STATE OF MAINE
v.
FLOYD YOUNG, JR.
LIPEZ, J.
[¶1] Floyd Young, Jr. appeals from the judgment entered in the
Superior Court (Knox County, Kravchuk, J.) following a jury verdict finding
him guilty of theft by deception in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 354 (1983).{1}
Young argues that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that he
failed to disclose the existence of a mortgage on property that he sold to the
victims, Daniel and Kristie Bourkas. He also contends that reliance by the
Bourkases on his alleged nondisclosure of the mortgage is an essential
element of the crime of theft by deception, and that there was insufficient
evidence for the jury to find such reliance. We affirm the judgment.
I.
[¶2] In December 1994 Floyd Young, Jr. was indicted for theft by
deception in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 354 for intentionally failing to
disclose a known encumbrance with the intent to deprive another of his
property. Based on the evidence offered at Young's trial, the jury could have
found the following facts.
[¶3] Young owned a 47-acre parcel of land in Warren, which had been
carved into several smaller lots during the 1980s and 1990s, including a lot
denoted "Parcel #3" and a lot denoted the "unnumbered parcel." In 1991
Daniel and Kristie Bourkas purchased the unnumbered parcel from Young
and built a house on it.
[¶4] In 1992 David Aho, an unrelated third party to this prosecution,
became interested in purchasing Young's remaining property. Aho retained
the services of attorney Elizabeth Biddle Jennings, who performed a title
search of the property. Attorney Jennings' title search revealed the
existence of a mortgage on Parcel #3. She made photocopies of the
mortgage for her files, but failed to list the mortgage on her "summary
sheet" of the title search. The sale to Aho was never consummated.
[¶5] In 1993 the Bourkases became interested in purchasing Parcel
#3 from Young. Young told Daniel Bourkas that Parcel #3 was encumbered
by a mortgage, and suggested that Bourkas try to assume the mortgage.
Bourkas was unable to assume the mortgage, and instead arranged for
private financing. To assist in the purchase of Parcel #3, the Bourkases
retained the services of attorney Jennings, who had performed a title search
on the lot for David Aho in 1992. Jennings updated the title search she had
performed for Aho, and found no transactions affecting Parcel #3 since her
original search. Because she had previously failed to list the Parcel #3
mortgage on her summary sheet, however, Jennings mistakenly believed
that the lot was unencumbered.
[¶6] After receiving a closing statement prepared by Jennings about a
week before the closing date that did not reflect any existing encumbrances
on the lot, Susan Thiem, Young's attorney, asked Jennings whether there
was a mortgage on Parcel #3. Jennings responded that according to her
records there was no mortgage. Shortly before the closing, Young told
Daniel Bourkas that he (Young) "had gone to the bank and they said that
there was no mortgage" on Parcel #3.
[¶7] The Bourkases, Young, and their respective attorneys attended
the closing in February 1993. At the closing, attorney Thiem expressed
surprise that there was no mortgage, and attorney Jennings assured her that
it was true. Young remained silent. The Bourkases gave Young a $26,000
check,{2} and Young gave the Bourkases a warranty deed with no reference to
a mortgage. Several weeks after the transaction, Jennings learned of the
undischarged mortgage and demanded that Young return the proceeds he
received at the closing, but Young had already spent most of the money.
[¶8] In August 1996 the court entered a judgment on a jury verdict
convicting Young of theft by deception in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 354.
This appeal followed.
II.
[¶9] Young first argues that there was insufficient evidence for the
jury to find that he "failed to disclose" the existence of an encumbrance on
Parcel #3, within the meaning of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 354(2)(D).{3} He contends
that his duty to disclose the existence of the mortgage pursuant to section
354 was satisfied by his express disclosure of the existence of the mortgage
to Daniel Bourkas several months before the sale; by the Bourkases'
constructive knowledge of the mortgage from other sources, including the
registry of deeds; and by attorney Jennings' previous discovery of the
mortgage in 1992 during her title search for David Aho. In examining the
sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the State to determine whether a trier of fact rationally could find beyond
a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged. See State v. Barry,
495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me. 1985).
[¶10] Pursuant to section 354, intentional nondisclosure of a known
encumbrance constitutes deception "whether such impediment is or is not
a matter of official record." 17-A M.R.S.A. § 354(2)(D). Thus, contrary to
Young's contention, the fact that Parcel #3's mortgage was recorded in the
registry of deeds did not relieve him of his statutory duty to disclose its
existence.{4} Moreover, the fact that Young told Daniel Bourkas several
months before the closing that the lot was encumbered did not satisfy
section 354's disclosure requirement, given Young's subsequent statement
to Bourkas shortly before the closing that the lot was in fact unencumbered.
At the time of the closing, which is the relevant period of inquiry for the
purposes of this prosecution, Bourkas had been misinformed by Young that
the lot was unencumbered, and Young made no disclosure at the closing to
the contrary.{5}
[¶11] Finally, contrary to Young's contention, attorney Jennings'
discovery of the mortgage during her 1992 title search for David Aho did not
relieve Young of his statutory duty to disclose the existence of the mortgage.
The plain language of section 354 makes a seller responsible for disclosing
his or her personal knowledge of existing liens on a property, without
regard to whether the buyer may have alternative means of discovering the
encumbrance. See id. § 354(2)(D) (intentional nondisclosure of a known
encumbrance constitutes deception whether such impediment is or is not a
matter of official record); see also id. § 354 (3) (it is no defense that person
deceived acted unreasonably in relying on the deception); id. § 354
comment (stating that subsection 3 "continues the Maine rejection of caveat
emptor in these circumstances"). Jennings' discovery of the mortgage in
1992 was the result of her search of the public records, not the result of any
disclosure by Young. Young's duty to disclose pursuant to section 354 existed
independently of information that was obtained or that was obtainable by
reference to official records, and he is not absolved of criminal liability
simply because the buyers' attorney came across the mortgage during a title
search performed for another party in an earlier, unrelated transaction.{6}
III.
[¶12] Young next argues that reliance is an essential element of the
crime of theft by deception pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 354, and that there
was insufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the Bourkases relied
on his nondisclosure of the mortgage. Rather, he argues, the Bourkases
relied on Jennings' defective title search in parting with their money, not
on his silence at the closing. We agree that reliance is an essential
component of the crime of theft by deception. We also conclude that there
was sufficient evidence for the jury rationally to find such reliance beyond a
reasonable doubt in this case.
[¶13] In defining the offense of theft by deception, section 354
provides that "[a] person is guilty of theft if he obtains or exercises control
over the property of another as a result of deception . . . ." See id. § 354(1)
(emphasis added). Although section 354 does not employ the word
"reliance," the statute expressly requires a causal connection between the
defendant's deceptive act and the acquisition of control over another's
property. That causal relationship, which may be characterized as
"reliance" in this context, must exist between a victim's ceding possession
or control of his property to the defendant and the defendant's act of
deception.{7}
[¶14] To determine the nature of this required causal relationship,
we look to the Maine Criminal Code's definition of causation:
Unless otherwise provided, when causing a result is an
element of a crime, causation may be found where the result
would not have occurred but for the conduct of the defendant
operating either alone or concurrently with another cause,
unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the
result and the conduct of the defendant was clearly insufficient.
17-A M.R.S.A. § 33 (1983) (emphasis added).{8} Contrary to Young's
contention, there is no requirement that his conduct have been the sole
factor in causing the Bourkases to deliver $26,000 to him. Rather, pursuant
to section 33, the causation element of theft by deception is satisfied if
Young would not have obtained the money but for his deceptive act-that is,
but for his failure to disclose the existence of the mortgage. Although
Jennings' defective title search may have been a concurrent cause
contributing to Young's acquisition of the Bourkases' money, this fact does
not preclude a finding that Young's nondisclosure was also a causative factor
within the meaning of section 33. The evidence in the record supports the
jury's conclusion that, had Young disclosed the existence of the mortgage at
the closing, the Bourkases would have insisted that the lien be discharged
and would not have delivered to Young the full cash proceeds for an
encumbered property.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
Attorney for State:
Geoffrey Rushlau, District Attorney, (orally)
62 Union Street
Rockland, ME 04841
Attorney for defendant:
Jonathan C. Hull, Esq., (orally)
P O Box 880
Damariscotta, ME 04543
FOOTNOTES******************************** {1} 17-A M.R.S.A. § 354 provides
in pertinent part: 1. A person is guilty of theft if he obtains or exercises
control over property of another as a result of deception and with an intention
to deprive him thereof. 2. For the purposes of this section, deception occurs
when a person intentionally: . . . D. Fails to disclose a known lien, adverse
claim or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of property which he transfers
or encumbers in consideration for the property obtained, whether such impediment
is or is not valid, or is or is not a matter of official record. 3. It is
no defense to a prosecution under this section that . . . the person deceived
acted unreasonably in relying on the deception. {2} Young also took back
a $4,000 promissory note secured by a mortgage on Parcel #3. {3} On appeal
Young makes no arguments concerning the sufficiency of the evidence regarding
his intent to deprive the Bourkases of their property or his knowledge of
the existence of a mortgage, both of which are also elements of the crime.
See 17-A M.R.S.A. § 354(2)(D). {4} We reject Young's contention that
a publicly recorded mortgage is not an "official record" within
the meaning of section 354(2)(D). {5} Young also points out that (1) Daniel
Bourkas testified that he knew the earlier prospective buyer, David Aho,
had tried to assume a mortgage on Parcel #3; (2) the Bourkases themselves
tried unsuccessfully to assume a mortgage on Parcel #3 before arranging
for private financing; and (3) when the Bourkases purchased the nearby "unnumbered
parcel" from Young in 1991, the Knox County Credit Union released a
mortgage on that parcel by quitclaim deed. To the extent that these facts
may have suggested to the Bourkases that Parcel #3 was encumbered at the
time of their 1993 purchase, however, they did not relieve Young of his
independent duty to disclose the existence of the mortgage pursuant to section
354, particularly given that Young himself misinformed the Bourkases about
the status of the property shortly before the closing date. {6} Young argues
that it is inappropriate to criminalize a seller's intentional failure to
disclose a known encumbrance, and contends that such conduct, occurring
as it does in this case in the context of a private land sale transaction,
must be governed by the traditional rule of caveat emptor. As is its prerogative,
however, the Legislature, by enacting section 354, has determined that criminal
sanctions may be appropriate when such conduct takes place with an intention
to deprive another of his property. This legislative determination
is not new, and in fact was reflected in section 354's predecessor, the
former false pretenses statute. See 17 M.R.S.A. § 1601, repealed by
P.L. 1975, ch. 499, § 8 (effective May 1, 1976). Prior to its repeal,
section 1601 read in part: Cheating by false pretenses.
Whoever, designedly and by any false pretense or privy or false token and
with intent to defraud, obtains from another any money, goods or other property,
the making of a loan or credit, the extension of credit, the discount of
an account receivable or what is represented to be an account receivable,
or the making, acceptance, discount, sale or indorsement of a bill of exchange,
bank check or promissory note, or his signature to any written instrument,
the false making of which is forgery, or whoever knowingly, and with
intent to defraud, sells, conveys, mortgages or pledges to another personal
property on which there is an existing mortgage or to which he has no title,
without notice to the purchaser of such mortgage or of such want of title,
is guilty of cheating by false pretenses . . . . Id. (emphasis added).
{7} We note that most jurisdictions have interpreted their theft by deception
statutes to include a requirement that the victim rely on the defendant's
deceptive act. See, e.g., King v. State, 447 S.E.2d 645, 648 (Ga. 1994)
(statute requires that defendant's deceptive act or false representation
have induced victim to part with his property); State v. Saylor, 618 P.2d
1166, 1168 (Kan. 1980) (noting that the generally accepted rule throughout
the United States is that the crime of theft by deception requires the state
to prove that "the victim was actually deceived and relied in whole
or in part upon the false representation"); State v. Worden, 838 P.2d
640, 641 (Ore. 1992) (theft by deception statute requires that the deceptive
act have induced or caused the victims to transfer property to defendant);
Commonwealth v. Imes, 623 A.2d 859, 862 (Pa. 1993) (statute requires that
state establish reliance by victim upon defendant's false impression); State
v. Casey, 915 P.2d 587, 589 (Wash.Ct.App. 1996) (evolution of crime of larceny
by false pretenses into theft by deception did not change its essential
elements and did not eliminate element of reliance). {8} The court's instructions
to the jury were in accord with section 33's definition of causation: [T]he
statute goes on to say that this control obtained or exercised must be done
as a result of deception. As a result means because of or but for the deception.
When we are talking about that, it's important to bear in mind that this
requires that |