2
Numbers and figures were frequently referenced by the parties from pure recall and very few
claimed figures or payments were backed up by documentary proof. The leniency of the parties’
relationship with each other, and with the senior Moorcrofts, make any reasonably accurate
accounting of the sums exchanged by the suit parties impossible, even before one undertakes
deciding whether contested payments were made, and if so by whom, to whom, for what, and
when.
2
parents understood Jim would pay the lent sums back, although no formal written
documents (promissory notes, security agreements, or even receipts) were prepared. It
was a situation of “family helping family”.
16. At the time the Shirley and Arthur- to Jim advances were being made, those parties did
not even keep a running tally sheet of just what was owed. To complicate things Jim
would sometimes make payments to his parents – cash, checks or payment of their
expenses “in kind” – but no formal tally or records were kept.
17. One thing is clear and undisputed. Jim’s rate of informal borrowing from his parents
significantly exceeded the rate by which he repaid them. The cumulative balance due
grew each year, even if there was no formal sum due or paid reconciliation.
18. At the time John had sold his Berlin farm in 2001 and was looking for ways to solve his
and Steve’s housing challenge, Jim had amassed at least $200,000 debt to his parents, for
his business related and personal informal borrowing.
19. In this setting around and before June 11, 2001, Jim and John; and later Jim, John, Steve
Barbara, and Rose Severance (“Rose”), who was John’s mother, discussed what came to
beknown as their “Life Lease”.
20. The concept was pretty straightforward and helped them each solve part of their financial
challenges. As Jim colorfully testified at one point, it gave everyone “the best bang for
the buck”.
21. The concept was the four Severances (John and Steven / Barb as a couple, and Rose)
would pay $60,000 to Jim, or on Jim’s behalf, so Jim could make progress in repaying his
parents the debt he owed them. The Severances in return would not get fee simple to the
Subject Property, or any subdivided lot. Instead they would get the right to occupy and
use the non-farmhouse portions of the Subject Property in a four-life life estate. Their
collective occupancy right would be for their combined lives, with the surviving
Severances to retain their occupancy rights until the last of them died.
22. Jim meanwhile would get to use the farmhouse on the land and have a remainderman
interest in the whole property. Jim would also become a co-tenant in common for the
portions of the property covered by the Severances’ life lease (except for residences they
placed or put on the land). Jim was simultaneously a remainderman on the property and a
co-tenant to the Severences (except as to each of their ownership interests in their
residences).
23. By late Spring 2001 Jim and the four Severances had a land instrument, entitled a “Life
Lease” drawn up by Attorney William Donahue. John had used Attorney Donahue but
everyone knew that in creating the deed that attorney was not representing any one
person or one side or the other. He was representing the group and anyone could get a
second opinion from their own lawyer.
24. The four page “Life Lease” was signed by Jim and the four Severances on or around June
11, 2001 (the “Life Lease”).
25. The Life Lease had several provisions that impact the issues in this case:
a. The Severances got to use the 68 acres for “residential, agricultural or any other legal
use or business” for payment of $60,00 rent for the life estate “lease”. (Page 1, Para.
4).