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