Patten v. Patten

No. 13280 I N THE SUPKEME COUKT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 197 6 D N L W. O AD PATTEN, Proponent and A p p e l l a n t , ROBERT L. FATTEN, C o n t e s t a n t and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e N i n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. D. M c P h i l l i p s , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Church, H a r r i s , Johnson & W i l l i a m s , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Cresap S. McCracken a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: Alexander, Kuenning, M i l l e r and U g r i n , G r e a t F a l l s Montana N e i l E. Ugrin a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana - - S u b m i t t e d : J u n e 2 , 1976 Decided : &C 3 0 19% >d/$ Filed: &'J i (1 , Hon. Edward T. D u s s a u l t , D i s t r i c t J u d g e , s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Pondera County, d e n y i n g a d m i s s i o n t o p r o b a t e o f a t y p e w r i t t e n document p u r p o r t i n g t o be t h e L a s t W i l l and Testament of E l l a D . P a t t e n , d e c e a s e d , and d e n y i n g t h a t a handwritten instrument w a s a c o d i c i l republishing t h e Will. E l l a D. P a t t e n , a widow, and a long-time r e s i d e n t of Pondera County, and mother of Donald W. P a t t e n , proponent and a p p e l l a n t , and Robert D. P a t t e n , c o n t e s t a n t and r e s p o n d e n t h e r e i n , went t o h e r d o c t o r ' s o f f i c e i n Conrad on J u l y 6 , 1970, i n k e e p i n g a n a p p o i n t m e n t w i t h h e r physician, D r . Fletcher. On t h a t o c c a s i o n s h e b r o u g h t w i t h h e r a two-page t y p e w r i t t e n document, and a f t e r b e i n g a t t e n d e d by h e r doctor, a request was transmitted t o the office s t a f f t o witness her W i l l . The t y p e w r i t t e n document c o n s i s t e d of two p a g e s d a t e d J u l y 6, 1970, w i t h t h e s i g n a t u r e of d e c e d e n t a t t h e bottom of t h e f i r s t page and t h e a t t e s t a t i o n c l a u s e , i n t h e u s u a l form, w a s a t t h e t o p of t h e second page and c o n t a i n e d t h e s i g n a t u r e s of Norma Sangray, A l i c e G . Morley, and Grace E . E l i n g s , a l l members of t h e o f f i c e s t a f f of d e c e d e n t ' s d o c t o r i n Conrad, Montana. Also on t h e f i r s t page, i n t h e second t y p e w r i t t e n p a r a g r a p h p e r t a i n i n g t o "my e x e c u t o r h e r e i n a f t e r named," t h e r e a p p e a r s no t y p e w r i t t e n name of any p e r s o n , b u t i n s t e a d , t h e name of "Donald W. P a t t e n " i n pen and i n k and on t h e margin a s i g n a t u r e , E l l a D. P a t t e n , and a t t h e v e r y bottom o f t h e f i r s t page a s i g n a t u r e , E l l a D . P a t t e n . The other instrument consisted of a piece of paper on which appeared, all in handwriting, this statement: "I request that (name inserted is omitted) be - employed to not probate my estate. Ella D. Patten, Feb. 14th, 1973." Ella D. Patten died September 14, 1973, and the purported Will and handwritten instrument were found in decedent's safety deposit box in a Great Falls bank by Donald W. Patten, proponent, who later filed the purported Will and Codicil for probate. Robert D. Patten contested the probate and subsequently the matter was heard before the District Court in Conrad, Pondera County, Montana, with a jury. The trial commenced on March 18, 1975. After the jury of twelve was selected and the opening statement of counsel for the proponent was made, the purported Will of decedent was marked as Proponent's Exhibit 1, and the hand- written instrument was marked Exhibit 2. Much of the testimony at trial centered around the circumstances of the execution of the Will--whether Ella D. Patten actually did subscribe or sign her name in the presence of the witnesses, or whether she acknowledged that the document had been signed by her prior to the signing by the witnesses, and whether she declared it to be her Will. The handwritten instrument was not testified to at great length by the witnesses from the medical staff; whether it is a codicil republishing the Will or a simple request not to employ a certain attorney. The first witness called for the proponent was Mrs. Norma Sangray, the Medical Assistant for Dr. Fletcher, who had been employed as such for about two years prior to July 6, 1970, and whose signature as a witness appeared first following the formal attestation clause. Upon being shown the second sheet or page of the proported Will, the witness recognized her signature and that of the other two witnesses but was unable to state that all three signed in the presence -2- of t h e d e c e d e n t and i n t h e p r e s e n c e of e a c h o t h e r , o r t h a t s h e r e a l l y knew i t w a s t h e d e c e d e n t ' s W i l l , because i f it had been, "it would have been a v e r y c e r e m o n i a l t h i n g and would have s t u c k i n m mind." y The second w i t n e s s t o be c a l l e d by t h e p r o p o n e n t w a s M r s . A l i c e C . Morley, who had worked f o r D r . F l e t c h e r s i n c e March 1970, a p e r i o d of a b o u t f o u r months, and h e r t e s t i m o n y was less e f f e c t i v e t h a n t h a t of t h e o t h e r two witnesses. She l i k e w i s e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e d i d n o t know t h e d e c e d e n t ; d i d n o t see t h e s i g n a t u r e of t h e d e c e d e n t o r any p a r t of t h e W i l l e x c e p t t h e second page when a l l t h r e e witnesses signed. The t h i r d w i t n e s s t o be c a l l e d by p r o p o n e n t w a s Mrs. Grace E. E l i n g s , who i s a n u r s e i n D r . F l e t c h e r ' s o f f i c e and had been f o r a b o u t f i v e y e a r s p r i o r t o J u l y 6 , 1970, and w a s t h e r e on t h a t d a t e and i d e n t i f i e d h e r s i g n a t u r e a s t h e l a s t one on page 2 of t h e document. She t e s t i f i e d s h e had known t h e d e c e d e n t n e a r l y a l l h e r l i f e and knew s h e had done l e g a l work, and t h e manner of h e r f o l d i n g t h e f i r s t page under t h e second was t y p i c a l of t h e p r i v a c y she desired regarding her personal a f f a i r s . Mrs. Elings f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d she d i d not s e e t h e f i r s t page of t h e p u r p o r t e d W i l l , she d i d not read t h e a t t e s t a t i o n clause, t h a t t h e witnesses d i d not sign i n t h e p r e s e n c e of e a c h o t h e r , and t h a t M r s . P a t t e n stood a l l t h e t i m e t h i s w a s g o i n g on and had s t a t e d t o h e r " E v e r y t h i n g i s i n order. I' Donald W. P a t t e n , t h e p r o p o n e n t , was t h e l a s t w i t n e s s t o be c a l l e d and t e s t i f i e d i n h i s own b e h a l f a s t o h i s f i n d i n g t h e p r o p o r t e d W i l l and t h e p r o p o r t e d C o d i c i l i n h i s m o t h e r ' s s a f e t y d e p o s i t box i n a G r e a t F a l l s bank, a l l among a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 t o 2 5 o t h e r p a p e r s and documents therein. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e h a n d w r i t t e n document was n o t a t t a c h e d t o t h e W i l l . -3- T h e r e a f t e r , proponent moved t h e a d m i s s i o n of E x h i b i t s 1 and 2 i n t o e v i d e n c e , and t h a t t h e W i l l of E l l a D. P a t t e n d a t e d J u l y 6 , 1970, and t h e C o d i c i l t h e r e t o d a t e d F e b r u a r y 1 5 , 1973, be r e c e i v e d f o r p r o b a t e . This w a s r e s i s t e d by c o u n s e l f o r c o n t e s t a n t , a n d , a f t e r h e a r i n g arguments, t h e t r i a l C o u r t t h e n a d m i t t e d E x h i b i t s 1 and 2 f o r t h e p u r p o s e s of t h e h e a r i n g and r e s e r v e d i t s r u l i n g w i t h r e s p e c t t o a d m i s s i o n of t h e two e x h i b i t s t o p r o b a t e . The c o n t e s t a n t t h e n c a l l e d Donald W. Patten, the p r o p o n e n t , a s a n a d v e r s e w i t n e s s and e l i c i t e d f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n from him. Following t h e c l o s e of t h e t e s t i m o n y t h e c o n t e s t a n t moved f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on t h e grounds t h a t : (1) E x h i b i t 2 on i t s f a c e was n o t a c o d i c i l ; (2) t h a t Exhibit 2 is not a t e s t a m e n t a r y document and makes no t e s t a m e n t a r y d i s p o s i t i o n i f t h e r e i s t o be any r e p u b l i c a t i o n ; ( 3 ) t h a t E x h i b i t 2 was n o t p h y s i c a l l y annexed t o n o r e n d o r s e d on t h e W i l l , E x h i b i t 1, n o r d i d it r e f e r i n any manner t o ~ x h i b i t 1 ( 4 ) t h a t 1 E x h i b i t 1, t h e p r o p o r t e d W i l l , was n o t e x e c u t e d i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d by l a w . The t r i a l C o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion i n r e f e r e n c e t o E x h i b i t 2 , s t a t i n g it was p r o b a b l y a q u e s t i o n of l a w and n o t of f a c t , b u t t h e q u e s t i o n would be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y a s a f a c t - f i n d i n g body, and t h a t E x h i b i t 1 would be s u b m i t t e d a l s o t o t h e jury a s t o t h e f a c t s surrounding i t s execution, under p r o p e r i n s t r u c t i o n s and i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s t o be i n c l u d e d i n a special verdict. C o n t e s t a n t o b j e c t e d t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s Nos. 3 , 8, and 9 on t h e grounds t h e r e was no t e s t i m o n y s u p p o r t i n g i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s No. 3 , and t h a t i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s Nos. 8 and 9 would t e n d t o i n v i t e s p e c u l a t i o n by t h e j u r y on q u e s t i o r s o f l a w alone. The Court gave p r o p o n e n t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n No. 4 a s .-4 - modified at contestant's request, as shown by the underlining thereof; which instruction reads as follows: "With a few exceptions not involved in this case, a person making a Will may dispose of his or her property in any way he or she sees fit, provided the requirements of the law are followed." During its deliberations, the jury sent to the Court a note: "In reference to Instruction No. 4, what are the requirements of the law pertaining to a Will?" The Court returned a note to the jury reading: "To the Jury: It is not necessary that you have the require- ments of the law to make a valid Will. If you answer the questions contained in the special verdict, the Court will determine whether or not the Will is valid as a matter of law." The special verdict contained the interrogatories as submitted and the answers, as follows: "1. Did Ella D. Patten sign or subscribe her name at the bottom of the first page of the document Exhibit #1 in the presence of any two of the witnesses: Norma Sangray, Alice E. Morley, Grace E. Elings? ANSWER: No. "2. If your answer to question numbered 1 is ' no', did any two of the witnesses, Norma Sangray, Alice E. Morley, Grace E. Elings, actually see the name of Ella D. Patten now appearing at the bottom of the first sheet of the document? ANSWER: No. "3. Did any two of the three witnesses have an opportunity to see the signature now appearing at the bottom on sheet one of the document? ANSWER: Yes. "4. Did Ella D, Patten at the time any two of the witnesses, Norma Sangray, Alice E. Morley, Grace E. Elings, signed their names on the second sheet acknowledge to such witnesses that the document had been signed by her? ANSWER: No. " 5 . Did E l l a D, P a t t e n d e c l a r e o r by h e r a c t s o r c o n d u c t communicate t o two w i t n e s s e s b e f o r e t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s i g n a t u r e s were p l a c e d on E x h i b i t #1, s h e e t two, t h a t t h e document was her w i l l ? ANSWER: Yes. "6. Did t h e w i t n e s s e s , Norma Sangray, A l i c e E . Morley, and Grace E . E l i n g s , e a c h s u b s c r i b e t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e names t o s h e e t two of t h e document i n t h e immediate p r e s e n c e o f t h e o t h e r two w i t n e s s e s . ANSWER: No. "7. Did a t l e a s t two w i t n e s s e s s i g n t h e i r names t o E x h i b i t #1 a t t h e r e q u e s t o f E l l a D. P a t t e n and i n h e r p r e s e n c e ? ANSWER: Y e s . "8. Did E l l a D. P a t t e n by p l a c i n g E x h i b i t # 2 i n h e r s a f e t y d e p o s i t box w i t h E x h i b i t #1 i n t e n d t h e r e b y t o modify, r e f e r t o , o r add t o Exhibit # l ? ANSWER: Y e s . "9. Did E l l a D . P a t t e n i n t e n d t o nominate Donald W , P a t t e n a s e x e c u t o r of h e r e s t a t e by w r i t i n g i n h i s name a t p a r a g r a p h 'SECOND' of exhibit l ? ANSWER: Y e s , " A f t e r r e c e i p t of t h e s p e c i a l v e r d i c t , t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment d e n y i n g p r o b a t e t o t h e W i l l and r u l e d t h e c o d i c i l o u t a s a t e s t a m e n t a r y document. This appeal followed. A p p e l l a n t u r g e s t h r e e b a s i c p r o p o s i t i o n s upon t h e C o u r t i n s u p p o r t of h i s a p p e a l . First: The C o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t h e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e law t h e y needed t o know i n making t h e i r d e c i s i o n on t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , t h e t e x t o f which n e c e s s a r i l y i n t e r w e a v e s some law and f a c t . A p p e l l a n t h a s r e f e r e n c e t o h i s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s No. 2 t h r u 7 . The r e f u s e d i n s t r u c t i o n s r e a d a s f o l l o w s when o r i g i n a l l y proposed w i t h amendments s u g g e s t e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of settlement of instructions: Proponent's proposed instruction 2: It is the policy of the law to sustain Wills, if possible to do so, and every reasonable presumption will be indulged in favor of due execution of a Will. Proponent's proposed instruction 3: The purpose of a statute and prescribing formalities for the execution of Wills is to guard against and prevent mistake, imposition, undue influence, fraud, or deception, and to afford means of determining authenticity. Therefore, a substantial, rather than literal compliance with each of the various statuatory formalities is sufficient. Proponent's proposed instruction 4: Our law does not require that the witness to a Will see (or remember having seen) the maker's signature if the maker in any manner consistent with these instructions acknowledges the document to be his Will. Proponent's proposed instruction 5 : When one acknowledges a Will to be his, he necessarily acknowledges that his signature is thereon. Proponent's proposed instruction 6: Acknowledgement of the subscription of a Will may be established by circumstantial evidence equally as well as spoken words. Proof of words, gestures or conduct is sufficient. Proponent's proposed instruction 7: Acknowledgement of a Will by its maker can be made in any manner that conveys to the mind of a witness of reasonable intelligence the maker's instruction to acknowledge its execution. Acknowledgement of a Will necessarily acknowledges the maker's signature thereon. Appellant cites as his authority In Re Bragg's - Estate, 106 Mont. 132, 7 6 P.2d 57, (1938). The decision in the Bragg Case is not controlling. The big difference in Bragg was that the witness OIConnell read the first page and to the "best memory" of the witness, as distinct from his peculiar ideas about swearing, saw the signature thereon and therefor his testimony alone was s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e W i l l under t h e c a s e s c i t e d by t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e C o u r t . S e c t i o n 91-903, R.C.M. 1947, s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e s : "The j u r y , a f t e r h e a r i n g t h e c a s e , must r e t u r n a s p e c i a l v e r d i c t upon t h e i s s u e s s u b m i t t e d t o them by t h e C o u r t , upon which t h e judgment of t h e C o u r t must be rendered e i t h e r admitting t h e W i l l t o probate o r r e j e c t i n g i t . " A l l of t h e r e f u s e d i n s t r u c t i o n s , 2 through 7 , a r e merely a b s t r a c t s t a t e m e n t s of law. The j u r y h e r e was n o t i n a p o s i t i o n t o r e t u r n a g e n e r a l v e r d i c t on t h e l e g a l s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h e two page document proposed f o r p r o b a t e . F u r t h e r , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s w e r e d e f e c t i v e i n some respects. S e c t i o n 91-107, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , r e f e r s t o a formal w i l l and i s i n f o u r r e a d i l y u n d e r s t o o d p a r t s : "1. I t must b e s u b s c r i b e d a t t h e end t h e r e o f by t h e t e s t a t o r h i m s e l f , o r some p e r s o n i n h i s p r e s e n c e and by h i s d i r e c t i o n must s u b s c r i b e h i s name t h e r e t o ; "2. The s u b s c r i p t i o n must be made i n t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e a t t e s t i n g w i t n e s s e s , o r be acknowledged by t h e t e s t a t o r t o them t o have been made by him o r by h i s a u t h o r i t y ; " 3 . The t e s t a t o r must, a t t h e t i m e of s u b s c r i b i n g o r acknowledging t h e same, declare t o t h e a t t e s t i n g witnesses t h a t t h e i n s t r u m e n t i s h i s w i l l ; and "4. There must be two a t t e s t i n g w i t n e s s e s , e a c h of whom must s i g n h i s name a s a w i t n e s s , a t t h e end o f t h e W i l l , a t t h e t e s t a t o r s r e q u e s t , and i n h i s p r e s e n c e . " The r e q u i r e m e n t of p a r t 1 as q u o t e d above was n o t s a t i s f i e d i n t h i s case. There i s no p r o o f whatsoever t h a t t h e r e was any s i g n a t u r e s u b s c r i b e d and t h e h a s t y a s s u r a n c e t h a t e v e r y t h i n g c o n c e a l e d "was i n o r d e r " d o e s n o t h e l p . It i s t r u e t h a t t h e j u r y d i d f i n d t h a t t h e w i t n e s s e s d i d have a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o see t h e s i g n a t u r e b u t t h a t i s n o t # s u p p o r t e d by any e v i d e n c e . As Mrs. E l i n g s demonstrated t h e f o l d i n g of t h e f i r s t s h e e t under t h e second s h e e t made t h a t p h y s i c a l l y impossible without i n s u l t i n g M r s . Patten a f t e r s h e had c a r e f u l l y p r e p a r e d t h e document t o c o n c e a l t h e f i r s t page b e f o r e any w i t n e s s was c a l l e d i n . Also, M r s . P a t t e n d i d n o t acknowledge t o any o f t h e w i t n e s s e s t h a t t h e proposed W i l l had been s i g n e d by h e r . The r e q u i r e m e n t o f P a r t 2 of S e c t i o n 91-107, quoted above, w a s l i k e w i s e n o t s a t i s f i e d i n t h i s c a s e . The a t t e s t a t i o n c l a u s e of M r s . P a t t e n on Page 2 , w a s n o t r e a d by any of t h e w i t n e s s e s . The second b a s i s urged by a p p e l l a n t i s : t h e judgment of t h e c o u r t i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s ; what t h e c o u r t d i d was tantamount t o i g n o r i n g t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and t h e j u r y r e s p o n s e s . W e b e l i e v e w e have c o v e r e d t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n by o u r d i s c u s s i o n i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e f i r s t b a s i s of p r o p o n e n t s appeal. The t h i r d b a s i s of a p p e l l a n t ' s a p p e a l i s : The c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e h o l o g r a p h i c c o d i c i l which mooted a l l t h e q u e s t i o n s p r e s e n t e d a b o u t e x e c u t i o n of t h e b a s i c W i l l . The n o t e which a p p e l l a n t r e f e r s t o a s a c o d i c i l i s c l e a r l y n o t a t e s t a m e n t a r y document. It does not r e f e r t o any W i l l , i t w a s n o t a t t a c h e d t o o r made a p a r t of t h e purported W i l l of M r s . Patten. C l e a r l y , t h e n o t e of M r s . Patten d i d not republish her W i l l . I n t h e Matter of t h e E s t a t e of Gudmunsen, Mont . , 545 P.2d 1 4 6 , 3 3 St. Rep. 57. The w r i t i n g of t h e name o f Donald W. P a t t e n on t h e f i r s t page of t h e W i l l i s presumed t o have been made a f t e r execution. The i n t e r l i n e a t i o n b e a r s no d a t e . The i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s No. 8 and 9 w e r e s u b m i t t e d o v e r t h e s t r o n g o b j e c t i o n s of c o n t e s t a n t . The i n t e n t i o n s of Mrs. P a t t e n were n o t q u e s t i o n s f o r t h e j u r y . These are m a t t e r s o f l a w f o r t h e Court t o d e c i d e . The c r o s s a p p e a l and c r o s s a s s i g n m e n t s o f e r r o r by t h e r e s p o n d e n t c l e a r l y set t h i s out. A f t e r c a r e f u l l y r e v i e w i n g a l l t h e a u t h o r i t i e s and s t a t u t e s c i t e d by a p p e l l a n t and r e s p o n d e n t we a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court d e n y i n g p r o b a t e . J u d g e , s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n . v i c e s