How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask CalAttorney2 Your Own Question
CalAttorney2, Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 10244
Experience:  Civil litigation attorney for individuals and businesses.
Type Your Legal Question Here...
CalAttorney2 is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I signed a legal document whilst on narcotics years

Customer Question

I signed a legal document whilst on narcotics for many years of being in pain. No lawyer nor Judge seemed to care of my condition. After being off these drug now for a few years my mind is clearer and I look back and feel that I was taken advantage of. Is there any recourse?
They just did not hear me nor thought it relivent to my case.
Submitted: 2 years ago.
Category: Legal
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
it was a 2012 document, brought up again in 2014 and 2015 court case concerning alimony. It's not like I got buyers remorse.
I think I was really taken advantage of by all concerned.
Expert:  CalAttorney2 replied 2 years ago.
I am very sorry to learn of this situation. Unfortunately, I have to agree with your attorney's statement that you "cannot unring the bell" (although I do understand this is not the kind of thing that you can easily "get over" it is something that you may need to move past).The way the law works with mental impairment (either due to medication or mental disability) is that if the other party to the contract knows, or should have known, that the other party was impaired in such a way that they could not understand the terms of the agreement, then the contract can be "voidable" (meaning the impaired party can enforce, or void the contract at their option). Keep in mind, the law is heavily tilted towards allowing all individuals to enter into contracts, the above law simply protects those with disabilities from being taken advantage of from others who know they are impaired and take advantage anyway.In your case, as this matter has already been adjudicated by the court multiple times, you are not addressing the above principle, but rather the principles of "res judicata" "issue preclusion" and "collateral estoppel" (all of which basically stand for the principle that once an issue has been decided by the court, the decision is final, and the parties cannot re-litigate that same issue hoping for another result - you will hear some attorney's refer to this as "one bite at the apple").