No. 85-69
I N THE SUPREME COURT O F T H E S T A T E O F MONTANA
1985
I N THE MATTER O F THE E S T A T E O F
ASMUND AAGESON, D e c e a s e d .
A P P E A L FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T w e l f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of H i l l ,
T h e H o n o r a b l e M. J a m e s S o r t e , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
COUNSEL O F RECORD:
For A p p e l l a n t :
Moses Law F i r m , Billings, Montana
For R e s p o n d e n t :
Aronow, Anderson, Beatty & Lee, Shelby, M o n t a n a
Waldo Spangelo, H a v r e , M o n t a n a
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : A p r i l 25, 1985
Decided: July
Filed:
Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank £3. Morrison, Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f
t h e Court.
Three c h i l d r e n o f t h e deceased, Asmund Aageson, appeal
t h e December 7 , 1984, o r d e r of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t
C o u r t d i s m i s s i n g t h . e i r p e t i t i o n s f o r p r o b a t e o f wil.1.s d a t e d
September 5 , 1980, and J u l y 1 5 , 1980. By t h a t same o r d e r ,
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a d m i t t e d i n t o p r o b a t e a w i l l d a t e d Decem-
b e r 30, 1964, t o g e t h e r w i t h i t s two c o d i c i l s , d a t e d December
1 7 , 1 9 7 4 , and November 1 0 , 1-975. W e affirm the order of the
D i s t r i c t Court.
Asmund and E l l a Aageson, husband and w i f e , operated a
farm n o r t h o f G i l d f o r d , Montana, c o n s i s t i n g of approximately
1,980 a c r e s . They had f i v e c h i l d r e n , o n e o f whom p r e d e c e a s e d
h i s parents. The r e m a i n i n g f o u r a r e A r v i n , Eugene, Delia
( L o r r a i n e ) and Nan. L o r r a i n e and Nan moved from Montana i n
t h e 1 9 4 0 ' s and now l i v e i n C a l i f o r n i a and Washington, r e s p e c -
tively. Eugene a c q u i r e d h i s own farm i n t h e same g e n e r a l
area. Arvin served in the military d u r i n g World War I1
before returning to the family farm. He then acquired
adjacent farm land and entered into a farming p a r t n e r s h i p
w i t h h i s f a t h e r i n e i t h e r 1948 o r 1949.
Asmund and E l l a r e t i r e d from a c t i v e f a r m i n g i n 1951 and
moved t o Seattle, Washington. To f a c i l i t a t e h i s c o n t i n u e d
o p e r a t i o n o f t h e f a r m , A r v i n was g r a n t e d a power o f a t t o r n e y
p e r m i t t i n g him t o s e l l g r a i n , s i g n c h e c k s and e n t e r i n t o farm
programs. However, h e was n o t a l l o w e d t o s e l l o r encumber
his parents' land.
Pursuant to an estate plan recommended by Asmund's
attorney, Mr. Kilbourne, Asmund and A r v i n t e r m i n a t e d t h e i r
p a r t n e r s h i p i n December 1964 and e n t e r e d i n t o a l e a s e a g r e e -
ment. Asmund and E l l a a l s o e x e c u t e d w i l l s d a t e d December 3 0 ,
1964, whereby A r v i n was to receive 1,020 acres while the
remaining 960 a c r e s w e r e t o p a s s o n e - t h i r d e a c h t o Eugene,
L o r r a i n e and Nan.
Four hundred eighty acres of the farm land were in
Ella's name. Under Ella's will, those acres were to be
i n h e r i t e d by A r v i n , s u b j e c t t o Asmund's l i f e i n t e r e s t i n t h e
income from t h e l a n d . F u r t h e r , t h e o i l and g a s r o y a l t i e s on
those l a n d s w e r e t o go t o A r v i n , Eugene, L o r r a i n e and Nan,
equally. The r e m a i n i n g 1,500 a c r e s w e r e i n Asmund's name.
By Asmund's will, A r v i n was t o receive 540 a c r e s w h i l e Eu-
gene, L o r r a i n e and Nan w e r e e a c h t o h a v e 3 2 0 a c r e s . These
l a n d s were s u b j e c t t o t h e same r o y a l t y r e s e r v a t i o n s s e t f o r t h
i n Ella's w i l l .
Thereafter, i n t h e e a r l y 1970s, M r . Kilbourne advised
Arvin r e g a r d i n g h i s own e s t a t e and recommended t h a t "a g e n e r -
a t i o n s k i p p i n g d e v i c e " b e employed t o p r e v e n t A r v i n ' s e s t a t e
from b e i n g t a x e d f o r t h e farm l a n d s . A c c o r d i n g l y , Asmund and
E l l a e x e c u t e d c o d i c i l s t o t h e i r w i l l s on December 1 7 , 1 9 7 4 ,
v e s t i n g t h e l a n d s A r v i n was t o r e c e i v e upon t h e i r d e a t h s i n
Arvin's sons, David and V e r g e s . David and V e r g e s had re-
mained a t home, a s s i s t i n g t h e i r f a t h e r w i t h t h e f a m i l y f a r m .
Arvin and h i s sons subsequently formed a p a r t n e r s h i p ,
Aageson G r a i n and C a t t l e . O November 1 0 , 1975, Asmund and
n
Ella replaced the original 1964 f a r m l e a s e t o Arvin w i t h a
new l e a s e t o t h e p a r t n e r s h i p . The two l e a s e s a r e v i r t u a l l y
i d e n t i c a l except t h e lease t o t h e partnership: (1) c o v e r e d
a l l p r o p e r t i e s mentioned i n t h e 1964 w i l l s ; and (2) granted
t o the lessee, upon Asmund's death, t h e option t o purchase
f o r $118,680, t h e 960 a c r e s d e v i s e d t o Eugene, L o r r a i n e and
Nan i n Asmund' s 1964 w i l l , excepting t h e royalty i n t e r e s t s .
The $118,680 r e p r e s e n t e d t h e f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e l a n d a t
that time. (The f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e l a n d was $356,410
a t t h e t i m e o f Asmund's d e a t h . )
The s e c o n d c o d i c i l , a l s o d a t e d November 1 0 , 1 9 7 5 , r e f e r -
e n c e d t h e new l e a s e a n d p r o v i d e d t h a t should t h e o p t i o n t o
p u r c h a s e b e e x e r c i s e d , E u g e n e , L o r r a i n e a n d Nan w o u l d r e c e i v e
t h e proceeds i n equal shares.
In the spring of 1 9 7 8 , David and V e r g e s p u r c h a s e d the
f a m i l y farm from Arvin. I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e f i n a n c i n g of
the purchase, Asmund and Ella executed a mortqage on the
l a n d s t h e y had devised t o Arvin. The 960 a c r e s d e v i s e d t o
Eugene, L o r r a i n e a n d Nan w e r e n o t m o r t g a g e d s o t h a t i f t h e
option t o p u r c h a s e was n o t e x e r c i s e d , the l a n d s would p a s s
unencumbered. W i t h Asmund's a n d E l l a ' s c o n s e n t , t h e e x i s t i n g
f a r m l e a s e was a s s i g n e d t o D a v i d a n d V e r g e s .
Asmund a n d E l l a h a d s o l d t h e i r home i n S e a t t l e i n t h e
spring of 1 9 7 4 a n d moved i n t o t h e Tacoma L u t h e r a n Home a n d
R e t i r e m e n t Community i n Tacoma, W a s h i n g t o n , approximately 12
m i l e s from Nan's home. Nan v i s i t e d h e r p a r e n t s e v e r y week-
e n d , t a k i n g t h e m s h o p p i n g a n d t o h e r home f o r S u n d a y d i n n e r .
Arvin phoned at l e a s t weekly to update his father on the
progress of the farm. He also visited h i s parents several
times a year. Eugene's and L o r r a i n e ' s contact with t h e i r
p a r e n t s was more l i m i t e d .
E l l a Aageson d i e d o n F e b r u a r y 2 8 , 1 9 7 9 . Probate o f her
1 9 6 4 w i l l a n d i t s 1 9 7 4 a n d 1 9 7 5 c o d i c i l s w a s commenced i n t h e
s p r i n g o f 1980 i n H i l l C o u n t y , M o n t a n a , w i t h A r v i n a n d Eugene
appointed a s co-executors of the estate. However, despite
t h r e e i n q u i r i e s from t h i s C o u r t , a s o f t h e d a t e o f t h e t r i a l
of t h i s c a u s e E u g e n e h a d f a i l e d t o e x e c u t e t h e f i n a l p a p e r s .
T h e r e was l i t t l e d i s c o r d w i t h i n t h e A a g e s o n f a m i l y u n t i l
Ella's death, when E u g e n e , L o r r a i n e a n d Nan learned of the
o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n t h e farm. A t Asmund's
9 1 s t b i r t h d a y p a r t y on F e b r u a r y 2 5 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e f a m i l y members
and a m o d e r a t o r h e l d a m e e t i n g a t w h i c h A r v i n w a s t o l d o f h i s
siblings' dissatisfaction. Arvin was a d v i s e d n o t t o e x e r c i s e
t h e o p t i o n t o purchase. An a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e f a r m ' s p r o c e e d s
was r e q u e s t e d . Nan demanded t h a t Eugene b e g i v e n h i s d e v i s e d
land immediately. A r v i n r e f u s e d t o a c q u i e s c e t o t h e demands
of h i s siblings.
Asmund was present, but did not participate at the
meeting. H e a p p a r e n t l y was u n a b l e t o e i t h e r h e a r o r u n d e r -
s t a n d what was o c c u r r i n g .
I n May 1 9 8 0 , Nan d e t e r m i n e d t h a t h e r f a t h e r needed a n
attorney t o represent his interests. She c o n t a c t e d Warren
Peterson, the attorney for the University for which she
worked, and requested that he v i s i t w i t h Asmund regarding
some e s t a t e m a t t e r s . Though a t t r i a l s h e d e n i e d h a v i n g done
s o , Nan a p p a r e n t l y f u r n i s h e d P e t e r s o n w i t h c o p i e s o f a t l e a s t
h e r f a t h e r ' s w i l l and c o d i c i l s , and p o s s i b l y t h e farm l e a s e .
A t a m e e t i n g on May 2 7 , 1980, Asmund and P e t e r s o n d i s c u s s e d
t h e f a c t s t h a t A r v i n ' s f i x e d p r i c e on t h e o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e
was t o o low and would b e u n f a i r t o Asmund's o t h e r c h i l d r e n ,
and t h a t A r v i n needed t o p r o v i d e h i s f a t h e r w i t h an a c c o u n t -
ing of t h e farm's business. Further, Peterson suggested t o
Asmund, per his deposition, that Peterson write Arvin to
inquire a s to h i s willingness to renegotiate the purchase
price to reflect the faFr market value of the f a r m upon
Asmund's d e a t h and t o demand a n a c c o u n t i n g . The l e t t e r was
written. Upon Asmund's approval, the l e t t e r was sent to
Arvin . Arvin's reply was an unresponsive, angry letter,
which was shown t o Asmund by P e t e r s o n . Peterson t h e n wrote
another letter t o Arvin, which a p p a r e n t l y went unanswered.
S u b s e q u e n t l y , a t a J u l y 1, 1 9 8 0 , m e e t i n g a t t h e n u r s i n g
home, Peterson presented Asmund with documents revoking
A r v i n ' s power o f a t t o r n e y and g r a n t i n g a new, g e n e r a l power
of attorney to Nan, including the right to s e l l Asmund's
land. Those documents w e r e s i g n e d and a d e c i s i o n was made t o
d r a f t a new w i l l , e l i m i n a t i n g A r v i n and h i s c h i l d r e n . While
admitting that the npw will was not entirely equitable,
Peterson testified at his deposition that he and Asmund
thought such a w i l l would be more e q u i t a b l e t h a n t h e 1964
will, e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e A r v i n and h i s s o n s would b e r e t a i n i n g
t h e option t o purchase a t a p r i c e s u b s t a n t i a l l y below f a i r
market value.
Because h e was c o n c e r n e d a b o u t Asmund's competency t o
execute a will, Peterson c o n t a c t e d Asmund's doctor, Ernest
Randolph. Dr. Randolph r e s p o n d e d t h a t on t h e b a s i s o f h i s
monthly v i s i t s w i t h Asmund, h e was u n c e r t a i n w h e t h e r on a n y
given day Asmund would be competent to execu,te v. a .b,will.
Peterson t h e r e f o r e requested D r . Randolph' s p r e s e n c e a t t h e
t i m e o f t h e a c t u a l e x e c u t i o n , J u l y 1 5 , 1980.
On t h a t d a t e , D r . Randolph q u e s t i o n e d Asmund c o n c e r n i n g
personal data, h i s c h i l d r e n , h i s p r o p e r t y and t h e n a t u r e of
h i s a c t i o n s u n d e r t h e new w i l l . Both D r . Randolph and P e t e r -
s o n w e r e t h e n s a t i s f i e d t h a t Asmund was c o m p e t e n t t o e x e c u t e
a will and the will was signed. There were no other
witnesses.
Arvin was informed of the revocation of h i s power of
a t t o r n e y and N a n ' s general power o f a t t o r n e y on August 11,
1980. H e was n o t t o l d o f t h e n e w w i l l . Upon l e g a l a d v i c e ,
A r v i n p r e s e n t e d h i s f a t h e r w i t h a new power o f a t t o r n e y f o r
himself, a s w e l l a s a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e e x i s t i n g 1975 farm
l e a s e p r o v i d i n g t h a t i f a n y farm l a n d s w e r e s o l d , A r v i n would
have t h e r i g h t of f i r s t refusal t o m e e t the price. These
documents were s i g n e d i n Asmund's room on August 29, 1980.
At l e a s t f o u r n u r s i n g home s t a f f members and a l e g a l secre-
t a r y w i t n e s s e d t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e documents. Most o f t h o s e
witnesses testified that t h o u g h t h e y had been skeptical at
f i r s t , t h e y t h o u g h t upon s e e i n g and t a l k i n g w i t h Asmund t h a t
h e was c o m p e t e n t t o e x e c u t e t h e documents.
Asmund a p p a r e n t l y t o l d Nan t h a t A r v i n had had him s i g n
some n e w documents. Nan t h e n c o n t a c t e d P e t e r s o n , who recom-
mended t h a t Asmund b e b r o u g h t t o s e e him. Eugene t o o k Asmund
t o P e t e r s o n ' s o f f i c e on September 5 , 1980. Asmund was u n a b l e
t o remember what documents h e had s i g n e d f o r A r v i n . There-
fore, a f t e r s a t i s f y i n g h i m s e l f t h a t Asmund was a g a i n compe-
t e n t t o execute a w i l l , P e t e r s o n had Asmund r e - e x e c u t e the
J u l y 1 5 , 1980, w i l l and s i g n documents r e v o k i n g a n y power o f
a t t o r n e y g i v e n t o A r v i n and r e e s t a b l i s h i n g a g e n e r a l power o f
a t t o r n e y i n Nan.
A r v i n t o o k no r e s p o n s i v e a c t i o n . However Nan, on Octo-
ber 24, 1980, t h r o u g h l a w y e r P e t e r s o n , petitioned the court
i n Tacoma, Washington, t o have Asmund declared incompetent
and to have herself appointed guardian of his person and
estate. A guardian ad litem was appointed to represent
Asmund i n t h o s e p r o c e e d i n g s . The c o u r t s u b s e q u e n t l y a p p o i n t -
ed Nan g u a r d i a n o f Asmund's p e r s o n . However, on t h e recom-
m e n d a t i o n o f Asmund's g u a r d i a n ad litem, a bank i n Tacoma,
Washington, was a p p o i n t e d g u a r d i a n o f Asmund's e s t a t e .
Little else relevant to this case occurred until
Asmund's d e a t h on J u l y 1 8 , 1983. At that time, Nan a c q u i r e d
the 1980 w i l l s from P e t e r s o n and g a v e them t o Eugene. On
August 3 , 1983, Arvin and Eugene, a s c o - e x e c u t o r s o f t h e 1964
will, m e t w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e a t t o r n e y s t o o b t a i n Asmund's
1964 w i l l and t h e 1974 and 1975 c o d i c i l s from Asmund's s a f e t y
d e p o s i t box. They b o t h s i g n e d a p e t i t i o n for p r o b a t e o f t h a t
w i l l t h a t same d a y . However, t h e n e x t m o r n i n g , s t i l l w i t h o u t
disclosing the existence of the 1980 w i l l s , Eugene called
Arvin's a t t o r n e y and a d v i s e d him n o t t o f i l e the petition.
N o t h i n g happened u n t i l O c t o b e r 1 2 , 1 9 8 3 , when A r v i n , as
one of t h e co-executors of the 1964 w i l l , filed a petition
f o r p r o b a t e o f t h a t w i l l and accompanying c o d i c i . 1 ~ . N e g o t i a -
t i o n s between Arvin's and E u g e n e ' s a t t o r n e y s postponed the
h e a r i n g on t h a t p e t i t i o n u n t i l November 29, 1983. Finally,
on t h e e v e n i n g o f November 28, 1983, Eugene's attorney in-
formed A r v i n ' s a t t o r n e y o f t h e September 5 , 1980, w i l l . .
Eugene filed that w i l l f o r probate on t h e morning o f
November 29, 1983. D u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n s t o
probate t h e two w i l l s , held that same d a y , no m e n t i o n was
made o f t h e J u l y 3.5, 1980, w i l l . Further, Eugene t o l d t h e
judge t h a t h e had n o t produced t h e September 1980 w i l l e a r l i -
er because he "didn't think we would have to produce
it ... [blecause we could settle o u t of court.'' (Tr. o f
November 29, 1983, a t p. 25.) No d e t e r m i n a t i o n regarding
which w i l l t o p r o b a t e was r e a c h e d t h a t d a y and t h e m a t t e r was
continued.
The n e x t h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r was h e l d O c t o b e r 22 and
23, 1984, f o l l o w i n g which t h e t r i a l j u d g e a d m i t t e d t h e 1964
w i l l and accompanying c o d i c i l s i n t o p r o b a t e . In h i s order,
t h e t r i a l j u d g e h e l d b o t h t h a t Asmund was n o t c o m p e t e n t t o
e x e c u t e t h e 1980 w i l l s and t h a t Asmund had been u n d u l y i n f l u -
enced i n e x e c u t i n g t h o s e w i l l s .
I n t h e i r a p p e a l o f t h a t o r d e r , Eugene, Nan and L o r r a i n e
r a i s e t h e following issues:
1. Was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t s u b s t a n t i a l , c r e d i b l e evidence
to support the District Court's conclusion that Asmund
Aageson was incompetent on J u l y 15, 1980, at the t i m e he
e x e c u t e d h i s l a s t w i l l and t e s t a m e n t o f J u l y 1 5 , 1.980?
2. Was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t s u b s t a n t i a l , c r e d i b l e evidence
to support the District Court's conclusion that Asmund
Aageson was incompetent on September 5, 1980, when he
executed his Last Will and Testament dated September 5, 1980?
3. Was there sufficient substantia1, credible evidence
to support the District Court's conclusion that Asmund
Aageson was under the undue influence of Nan Nolkleberg,
Eugene Aageson and/or their agents on July 15, 1980, when he
executed his last will and testament?
4. Was there sufficient substantial, credible evidence
to support the District Court's conclusion that Asmund
Aageson was under the undue influence of Nan Nolkleberg,
Eugene Aageson or their agents on September 5, 1980, when he
executed his last will and testament?
There is some question about whether a testator can be
both incompetent and unduly influenced at the same time.
Here the trial judge found this testator to be both
incompetent and the subject of undue influence. Several
cases have held that if you are incompetent then you cannot
be the subject of undue influence as the latter presupposes
testamentary capacity. For example see Johnson v . Shaver
(S.D. 1919), 172 N.W. 676; Moore v. Horne (Tex.Civ.App.
1940), 136 S.W.2d 638. This view has been criticized by text
writers. In T. Atkinson, - - Wills
Law of (2d ed. 1953) at page
253, the author states:
"At the outset it is important to notice language
which is sometimes found to the effect that undue
influence, fraud and mistake presume a mentally
competent testator. It is true that if the
testator is incompetent, the other elements may be
considered immaterial, for his will is invalid for
lack of testamentary capacity alone. However, many
wills are contested both on the ground of
incapacity and also because of undue influence,
fraud, or mistake. It has been held that a will
may be invalid for both mental incapacity and undue
influence, and that the matters are so closely
related that the courts will consider them
together. These grounds are not mutually
inconsistent in the sense that proof of one
disproves the others." (Footnotes omitted)
I t i s t r u e t h a t i f a t e s t a t o r i s incompetent t h a t should
end t h e inquiry. However, t e s t a m e n t a r y c a p a c i t y and undue
i n f l u e n c e may b e c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r i n t h e s e n s e t h a t one
who h a s a weak w i l l i s more s u b j e c t t o i n f l u e n c e . In t h i s
case the evidence of incompetency, standing alone, is not
sufficient to support the trial court's finding of mental.
incapacity. However, t h e e v i d e n c e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t
t h e t e s t a t o r was m e n t a l l y weak and h i g h l y s u g g e s t i b l e . This,
t a k e n t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e e v i d e n c e o f undue i n f l u e n c e , s u p p o r t s
the trial court's finding that there was in fact undue
influence exercised.
Undue i n f l u e n c e i s d e f i n e d i n 5 28-2-407, MCA.
"Undue i n f l u e n c e c o n s i s t s i n :
" (1) t h e u s e by o n e i n whom a c o n f i d e n c e
i s r e p o s e d by a n o t h e r o r who h o l d s a r e a l
o r a p p a r e n t a u t h o r i t y o v e r him o f s u c h
confidence o r a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e purpose
o f o b t a i n i n g an u n f a i r a d v a n t a g e o v e r
him;
" ( 2 ) t a k i n g an u n f a i r advantage of
a n o t h e r ' s weakness o f mind; o r
" ( 3 ) t a k i n g a g r o s s l y o p p r e s s i v e and
u n f a i r advantage o f another' s n e c e s s i t i e s
o r distress."
I n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r o r n o t undue i n f l u e n c e h a s b e e n
e x e r c i s e d on a t e s t a t o r making a w i l l , a c o u r t must c o n s i d e r :
(1) .
Confidentia 1 relationship of the
person attempting to influence the
testator;
" ( 2 ) . The p h y s i c a l condition of the
t e s t a t o r a s it a f f e c t s h i s a b i l i t y t o
withstand t h e influence;
" (3) . The m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n o f t h e t e s t a -
t o r a s it a f f e c t s h i s a b i l i t y t o with-
stand t h e influence;
" ( 4 ) . The u n n a t u r a l n e s s o f t h e d i s p o s i -
t i o n a s it r e l a t e s t o showing an u n b a l -
anced mind o r a mind e a s i l y s u s c e p t i b l e
t o undue i n f l u e n c e ; and
" ( 5 ) . The demands and i m p o r t u n i t i e s a s
they may affect particular testator
taking into consideration the time, the
place, and all the surrounding circum-
stances. " Blackmer v. Blackmer (1974),
165 Mont. 69, 75, 525 P.2d 559, 562.
Confidential Relationship
Eugene and Nan en joyed a confidentia 1 relationship with
their father. They were Asmund's children and he obviously
cared deeply for them. His physical proximity to Nan encour-
aged a close, confidential relationship. He spent every
weekend with Nan and her family. He relied on Nan for com-
panionship as well as for the provision of some of his needs.
(2)
Physical Condition
Asmund's physical condition was such that he could not
easily withstand any influence placed upon him. He was very
hard of hearing, and therefore unable to comprehend the
activities and meetings occurring around him. This was
evidenced by the fact that he was unaware of the animosity
between his children at the "meeting" on his 91st birthday.
He was essentially confined to a nursing home, so unable
to see for himself how the farm in Montana was progressing.
Even when he allegedly told Arvin he wished to visit Montana
in the fall of 1980, Nan prohibited him from doing so. His
confinement also limited his ability to interact with his
children concerning his financial matters or to view for
himself how his children were reacting toward those matters.
When he was approached by one of his children in the nursing
home, he was forced to rely on whatever they said as he had
no independent means of verifying the information.
(3
Mental Condition
Asmund's mental c o n d i t i o n made him v e r y s u s c e p t i b l e t o
the influence of those close t o him. He suffered from a
brain disorder. S e v e r a l n u r s i n g home s t a f f members t e s t i f i e d
t h a t Asmund's memory was n o t good, t h a t be s u f f e r e d day-to-
day d i s o r i e n t a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t i m e , p l a c e and r e g u l a r
activities. T h i s l o s s o f memory and d i s o r i e n t a t i o n r e s u l t e d
i n Asmund r e l y i n g on o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s f o r a l l h i s n e e d s and
information. It a l s o , according t o t h e nurses a t t h e nursing
home and D r . Randolph, l e f t him v e r y s u s c e p t i b l e t o s u g g e s -
t i o n and i n f l u e n c e .
Dr. Randolph's deposition, which was videotaped and
presented at trial in lieu of Dr. Randolph testifying in
person, included t h e following:
"Q (By M r . Moses) L e t m e n a r r o w it down
i f I could. Around l a t e August and e a r l y
September o f 1980--
"A Okay.
"Q - - w h i l e h e was l i v i n g i n t h e L u t h e r a n
Home, M r . Aageson was l i v i n g i n t h e
L u t h e r a n Home, was h e c a p a b l e o f e n t e r i n g
i n t o amendments t o l e a s e agreements,
e x t e n d i n g them, and t h a t s o r t o f t h i n g ?
"A - would i m a g i n e - -
I he was capable - - of it
on s u g g e s t i o n , b u t o t h e r
- t h a n -t h a t I
- -
c a n ' t s a v t h a t h e would b e .
L
of h i s voli-
t i o n would - -, -u t - h G
do i t b - t 170- know.
"Q But h e d i d u n d e r s t a n d t h e s e t h i n g s a s
t h e y were e x p l a i n e d t o him?
"A I t h i n k he coul~d.
"Q S u r e . And h e c o u l d v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r
i n t o t h e s e i f h e u n d e r s t o o d them?
"A Yes, i f t h e y w e r e e x p l a i n e d , I think
he c o u l d u n d e r s t a n d them.
" Q And t h e same would be t r u e o f a w i l l ,
and t h i s would b e a b o u t t h e t i m e o f
August 29 t o September 5 o f 1980?
"A Yes, I t h i n k he could probably."
(emphasis s u p p l i e d ) Dep. T r . a t p. 15.
We a l s o q u o t e t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t from t h e t e s t i m o n y
o f David F a g e r l y , the Director of t h e Department o f Social
S e r v i c e s a t t h e Tacoma L u t h e r a n Home:
"Q A t t h e l a s t h e a r i n g h e l d i n November
o f 1983, you t e s t i f i e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t
you t h o u g h t t h a t M r . Aageson was e x t r e m e -
Ly s u b j e c t t o s u g g e s t i o n o r i n f l u e n c e o f
t h e l a s t person t h a t he t a l k e d t o , i s
that correct?
"A Yes, p r e t t y much, y e s , I would s a y
p a r t i c u l a r l y someone t h a t h e knew; maybe
w i t h a c o m p l e t e s t r a n g e r , maybe n o t q u i t e
a s f l e x i b l e , b u t very prone s t i l l t o
influence .
"Q Very p r o n e t o i n f l u e n c e ?
"A Extremely, yes.
"Q - someone was - - - - - t o him l i k e a
If - - t o come
son - r a d a u g h-t e r , - - r e p r e-s e-n t a t i v e -
-- o or a -
of
t h a -son o r d a u g h t e r , would - - -
- t - h e be i n -
~ l i n e d o l i s t e n - - -and b e s u b i e c t e d
t t o them - d
t o i n f l u e n c e & them?
-
"A Y e s if h e b e l i e v e d t h e y - -c t
in fa
represented t r e i n t e r e s t s - -s - -o r
of h i son
daughter, -I b e l i e v e h e would." (emphasis
supplied) ( T r . o f O c t o b e r 2 2 and 23,
1984, a t pp. 243-244)
Unnaturalness of Disposition
As i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e f a c t s s e t f o r t h a t t h e b e g i n n i n g
of t h i s opinion, e v e r y a c t i o n by Asmund s i n c e 1948 was d i -
r e c t e d t o w a r d p r o t e c t i n g A r v i n ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e f a m i l y farm.
Therefore, the 1980 w i l l s d i s i n h e r i t i n g Arvin and h i s s o n s
a r e completely unnatural.
Demands on Asmund Given S u r r o u n d i n g C i r c u m s t a n c e s
Eugene, Nan and L o r r a i n e w e r e shocked and g r e a t l y u p s e t
when t h e y l e a r n e d o f A r v i n ' s o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e t h e i r i n t e r -
e s t i n t h e f a m i l y f a r m upon t h e i r f a t h e r ' s d e a t h . Nan ob-
t a i n e d a lawyer f o r h e r f a t h e r , t h u s encouraging a change i n
his testamentary disposition. Eugene hampered the
i n h e r i t a n c e by A r v i n o f h i s m o t h e r ' s 4 8 0 a c r e s b y r e f u s i n g t o
sign the f i n a l papers required t o probate her w i l l . After
Asmund's death, Nan and Eugene attempted to use the 1980
wills as a negotiating instrument to prevent Arvin from
exercising h i s option.
I t i s c l e a r from t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t h a t Asmund was
t h e v i c t i m o f demands by h i s c h i l d r e n t o d i s p o s e o f h i s f a r m
i n t h e manner t h e y b e l i e v e d b e s t .
There i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence i n support o f t h e
trial judge's determination that all five factors to be
c o n s i d e r e d when determining whether or not a t e s t a t o r was
u n d u l y i n f l u e n c e d a t t h e t i m e h e made h i s w i l l a r e p r e s e n t i n
t h i s instance. The o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
FJe c o n c u r : /