Mortgages, seniors and the common law contractual doctrine of mental incapacity in Australia

Seniors in Australia are being called upon to mortgage their most precious economic asset, the family home. They may be asked to guarantee the liabilities of other family members by providing a mortgage-based guarantee or they may decide to enter into a reverse mortgage to supplement financially their savings and pensions. As the family home is the single most valuable asset for most older Australians, the creation of any obligations in regard to it ought to be undertaken with care and vigilance. While seniors are free to create mortgages, they may lack the capacity to understand the legal ramifications of these complex transactions or be unable to protect their interests when entering into them. It is not suggested that older Australians necessarily suffer a lack of contractual capacity. Many seniors are more than able to take care of their interests and assets. However, some seniors do suffer cognitive impairment which adversely affects their capacity to act in their best interests and to navigate the complexities of contractual relations. In contract and mortgage law, this raises the issue of mental incapacity.For centuries, the common law has recognized not only that mentally incapacitated people exist, but that they may enter into contracts such as mortgages and may later wish to have the mortgage set aside. The present formulation of the contractual doctrine of mental incapacity is the product of 19th century jurisprudence in which the courts framed the doctrine to accommodate commercial dealing rather than the interests of persons who lacked the necessary mental capacity. Accordingly, the doctrine has been very difficult to rely on successfully when challenging mortgages made by persons lacking capacity. Therefore, Australian litigators and courts alike have sought to deal with mental incapacity issues in the contractual context by using and modifying other doctrines (such as non est factum, undue influence and unconscionable dealing) in which the issue of capacity may be incorporated, but where mental incapacity need not be the sole or primary focus. While this had led to greater success for mortgagors, this has been at the expense of the common law doctrine. The article concludes by offering some suggestions as to how the doctrine may be modernized and mental capacity dealt with in a way both to empower competent seniors and protect those vulnerable seniors suffering cognitive impairment.