Case Title: DYBVIK v DYBVIK

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-446

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-12-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
N o . 81-446 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA i982 RICHARD A. DYBVIK, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, VS . lvIARY DYBVIK, Defendant and Respondent. I N T H E M A T T E R O F T H E ESTATE O F HJORDIS BINGHAM, Deceased. IN T H E PATTER O F T H E ESTATE O F TRYGVIE A. DYBVIK, Deceased. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourteenth 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 County of 14usseishell Honorable N a t Allen, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For P l a i n t i f f : Linda L. Harris, B i i l i n g s , Montana Alan J. Lerner, Big Fork, Montana For Defendant: Rerndon, Harper & Munro, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted on b r i e f s : J u l y 29, 1982 Decided: December 9, 1982 F i i e d : DEc 9 - 1982 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s is an a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d i n t h e F o u r t e e n 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 County of M u s s e l s h e l l . The o r i g i n a l a c t i o n was commenced by Richard Dybvik, a l l e g i n g damages and unlawful o c c u p a t i o n of r e a l p r o p e r t y . The d e f e n d a n t , Mary Dybvik, f i l e d an answer and cross-complaint denying t h e p r i n c i p a l a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e complaint and f u r t h e r a l l e g i n g t h a t Richard Dybvik had o b t a i n e d t i t l e to t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y through undue i n £ l u e n c e . Richard Dybvik answered by denying any undue i n £ l u e n c e and cross-claimed f o r damages f o r f r a d u l e n t , m a l i c i o u s , and i n t e n t i o n a l a c t s of Mary Dybvik i n h e r a t t e m p t to deny him of h i s p r o p e r t y . T h i s a c t i o n was l a t e r c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h t w o o t h e r p r o b a t e c a u s e s . The judgment, e n t e r e d on J u n e 1 9 , 1981, set a s i d e a power of a t t o r n e y , a w i l l , and a deed; a l l on grounds of undue in£ l u e n c e . The a p p e l l a n t r a i s e s t h e following i s s u e s on a p p e a l : (1) whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law, and o p i n i o n a r e supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence; ( 2 ) whether or n o t t h e r e was any a c t of undue i n f l u e n c e i n procurement of t h e power of a t t o r n e y , t h e w i l l , and t h e deed; and ( 3 ) i f t h e District Court e r r e d i n its judgment, whether t h i s case should be remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s r e l a t i n g to p l a i n t i f f 's o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t f o r damages. W e found no error i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n to set a s i d e t h e deed b u t r e v e r s e t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e c o u r t t h a t respondent e s t a b l i s h e d , by c l e a r and convincing e v i d e n c e , t h a t t h e w i l l and t h e power of a t t o r n e y were acquired through means and in£ luence of t h e b e n e f i c i a r y , Richard Dybvik, and not done w i t h t h e f r e e w i l l of H j o r d i s Bingham. I n March of 1979, H j o r d i s Bingham, an e l d e r l y l a d y i n h e r s e v e n t i e s , was i n poor h e a l t h . A t t h a t time she was l i v i n g i n C a l i f o r n i a . On or about March 30 s h e was admitted to Temple Community H o p s i t a l i n L o s Angeles . H o s p i t a l p e r s o n n e l , concerned with h e r a b i l i t y to care f o r h e r s e l f and h e r a f f a i r s , s o u g h t to c o n t a c t members of h e r f a m i l y . The h o s p i t a l c o n t a c t e d Thomas Ask, t h e f a m i l y a t t o r n e y i n Roundup, Montana. M r . Ask t h e n con- t a c t e d T r y g v i e Dybvik, t h e b r o t h e r of H j o r d i s . Trygvie c o n t a c t e d h i s s o n , Richard Dybvik, who agreed to go to C a l i f o r n i a to see what could be done. Richard went to C a l i f o r n i a and m e t h i s a u n t f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e . W i t h i n one week he o b t a i n e d a g e n e r a l power of a t t o r n e y a l l o w i n g him to handle a l l of h e r a f f a i r s . A t t h i s t i m e H j o r d i s Bingham had f o u r d i f f e r e n t bank a c c o u n t s t o t a l i n g $32,131.09. There was e x t e n s i v e t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l r e g a r d i n g t h e s u b s e q u e n t e x p e n d i t u r e of t h e s e funds. It is s u f f i c i e n t to n o t e t h a t when Richard Dybvik gained c o n t r o l o v e r t h e f o u r a c c o u n t s , t h e funds were soon d e p l e t e d . A f t e r o b t a i n i n g t h e power of a t t o r n e y , Richard moved H j o r d i s from t h e h o s p i t a l to V i r g i l Convalescent H o m e , l o c a t e d i n L o s Angeles. Toward t h e end of May arrangements were made to move H j o r d i s to Montana. An apartment was r e n t e d i n Roundup. Richard and h i s w i f e were t o l i v e w i t h and care f o r H j o r d i s . S h o r t l y a f t e r a r r i v i n g i n Roundup H j o r d i s was a g a i n admitted to h o s p i t a l care. Doctor Davis of Roundup confirmed t h e d i a g n o s i s of d o c t o r s a t Temple Community H o s p i t a l i n Los Angeles; t h a t H j o r d i s w a s s u f f e r i n g from c h r o n i c o r g a n i c b r a i n syndrome and o t h e r phys ical a i l m e n t s . On June 1 3 , 1979, H j o r d i s was d i s c h a r g e d from t h e Roundup h o s p i t a l t o l i v e w i t h h e r nephew and h i s w i f e . Approximately one month l a t e r , on J u l y 1 0 , 1979, H j o r d i s executed a new w i l l i n which s h e l e f t a l l of h e r p e r s o n a l and real p r o p e r t y to Richard Dybvik. Richard t e s t i f i e d t h a t H j o r d i s had asked him to c o n t a c t M r . Ask so t h a t arrangements could be made to d r a f t t h e new w i l l . M r . Ask had p r e v i o u s l y probated t h e estate of t h e d e c e a s e d ' s f a t h e r , and had known t h e deceased f o r a number of y e a r s . H e t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was c a l l e d by t h e h o s p i t a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r i n C a l i f o r n i a i n A p r i l 1979 because some of h i s l e t t e r h e a d s were found i n h e r a p a r t m e n t . H e was advised t h a t she w a s s e r i o u s l y ill and asked t o c o n t a c t h e r b r o t h e r , Trygvie. H e d i d so and found him t o o ill to t r a v e l so Trygvie c o n t a c t e d h i s son Richard i n Arizona and g o t him t o go t o C a l i f o r n i a t o check up on h i s a u n t . According to M r . Ask's testimony Richard asked him what to d o and he advised him t o be "appointed c o n s e r v a t o r or g u a r d i a n " o r a t l e a s t g e t a power of a t t o r n e y from h e r so t h a t h e r b u s i n e s s m a t t e r s , r e n t , h o s p i t a l , m e d i c a l , etc. b i l l s could be p a i d . Concerning t h e drawing of t h e w i l l he t e s t i f i e d he was c a l l e d by Richard e a r l y i n J u l y t o come see h i s a u n t about drawing a new w i l l and t h a t he d i d s o on J u l y 1 0 . H e went to h e r apartment t o g e t t h e d e t a i l s of t h e new w i l l b u t b e f o r e doing so he v i s i t e d w i t h h e r f o r it was t h e f i r s t t i m e he had s e e n h e r s i n c e s h e r e t u r n e d t o Roundup. H i s testimony of t h i s v i s i t is i m p o r t a n t and c o n t r o l l i n g a s to h e r mental c o n d i t i o n t h a t day and it is set f o r t h a s f o l l o w s : "Q. Did s h e t e l l you what she wanted done w i t h h e r p r o p e r t y f o r purposes of t h e w i l l ? A. Y e s . "Q. And what was t h a t ? A. Well, she was always concerned a b o u t h e r b r o t h e r , Trygvie Dybvik, b u t she t o l d m e when I v i s i t e d h e r on t h a t day t h a t she had v i s i t e d w i t h him, or t a l k e d to him on t h e phone, and he was i n , you know, poor h e a l t h , b u t she f e l t t h a t he was g e t t i n g t h e v e t e r a n ' s pension and he was a t t h e V e t e r a n ' s H o s p i t a l i n Miles C i t y and drew S o c i a l S e c u r i t y , s o she thought he was p r e t t y w e l l taken c a r e o f . And she wanted t o make h e r w i l l l e a v i n g a l l of h e r p r o p e r t y to h e r nephew, Richard Dybvik. " Q . Did s h e make any comments about Mary Dybvik a t t h a t t i m e ? A. Y e s . Over t h e y e a r s , she and Mary, I g u e s s , have had a feud f o r many y e a r s , and she d e f i n i t e l y , on t h a t d a y , s a i d s h e d i d n ' t want Mary t o have h e r p r o p e r t y i f a n y t h i n g happened to h e r ; and t h a t ' s why she wanted to g i v e it to R i c h a r d , and s h e f e l t t h a t T r i g g e r was taken c a r e o f , you know, and so she d i d n ' t have t h a t much o b l i g a t i o n to him. "Q. Do you r e c a l l who c o n t a c t e d you w i t h r e g a r d to s e e i n g H j o r d i s ? A. I t h i n k Richard t o l d me s h e wanted to see m e , and p r o b a b l y a b o u t t h e 9 t h , I suppose, i n t h e morning, I t o l d him, ' W e l l , I ' l l s t o p e i t h e r going home a t lunch or on t h e way back from lunch. ' "Q. Who else was p r e s e n t when you t a l k e d to H j o r d i s ? A. No one. J u s t H j o r d i s and m y s e l f . "Q. Do you recall how long you t a l k e d to h e r ? A. Oh, I suppose I was t h e r e maybe 20 m i n u t e s . I t h i n k Richard and h i s wife may have been t h e r e when I g o t t h e r e . They kind o f had a--she was still ill. She was i n a h o u s e c o a t , and I t h i n k t h e y l e f t when I g o t t h e r e . I know t h e y w e r e n ' t i n on t h e conver- s a t i o n a t a l l . "Q. The w i l l was executed J u l y 1 0 , 1979. Can you e x p l a i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s under which t h a t was e x e c u t e d ? A. Well, I t o l d h e r t h a t I would f i x it and I would come up t h e n e x t day, so we worked it o u t a t noon t h a t we would s t o p on t h e way home, and t h e w i t n e s s e s were John P r a t t , my p a r t n e r , and J u l i e Ann, o u r s e c r e - t a r y , so w e a l l stopped on o u r way home from l u n c h . I g o t t h e r e f i r s t so she would have a chance t o l o o k o v e r t h e w i l l , and t h e n John P r a t t came and o u r s e c r e t a r y came. She had r e a d t h e w i l l , and I went o v e r it with h e r ; and she s i g n e d it and t h e y w i t n e s s e d it and I n o t a r i z e d it. "Q. Did you l e a v e t h e w i l l w i t h H j o r d i s when you went? A. Yes, and a p p a r e n t l y I l e f t a copy t h e r e too. A l o t of people want an e x t r a copy so t h e y can p u t t h e w i l l i n t h e i r box and a copy to l o o k a t i f they want to, and t h a t one you showed m e is the copy I made f o r h e r , because it is my p r i n t i n g . "Q. On both of t h o s e o c c a s i o n s , J u l y 9 , 1979, and J u l y 1 0 , 1979, d i d you make any obser- v a t i o n s a b o u t H j o r d i s ' mental state? A. Well, it seemed to me t h a t she was about t h e way I always remember h e r , o t h e r t h a n she had been s i c k , it w a s obvious. She was t h i n n e r and weaker, b u t o t h e r t h a n t h a t , I t h o u g h t s h e was competent and about t h e same as she had always been. "Q. A t t h a t time d i d s h e know who she was? A. Oh, y e s . "Q. Did s h e know who you were? A. She knew who I was, and w e v i s i t e d . "Q. Did s h e know who Richard w a s ? A. Oh, y e a h . "Q. Did s h e know t h e ranch s h e was d i s p o s i n g of i n t h e w i l l ? A. Yeah, she t a l k e d about t h a t , because o v e r t h e y e a r s , h e r b r o t h e r , T r i g g e r , h a s used t h e ranch and r u n cattle on t h e r e ; and t h i s was a p p a r e n t l y p a r t of t h e i r arrangement t h a t s h e was kind of h e l p i n g him t h a t way, t h a t he had t h e use of it, b u t s h e t a l k e d a b o u t t h i n g s . There was nothing unu- s u a l t h a t s h e d i d n ' t know what s h e was doing. "Q. On both of t h e s e o c c a s i o n s , d i d H j o r d i s Bingham e x p r e s s a concern t h a t t h i s p r o p e r t y n o t go to Mary Dybvik? A. Oh, y e s . "Q. W a s s h e v e r y adament a b o u t t h a t ? A. Y e s , and s h e had been o v e r t h e y e a r s . She wanted T r i g g e r t a k e n care of --her b r o t h e r , t h a t ' s h i s nickname--but she d i d n ' t want Mary or h e r boys to have any of h e r p r o p e r t y . 'I Q . Did she e v e r r e f e r t o Mary and h e r c h i l d r e n a s 'Mary and h e r c h i c k e n s , ' t h a t you c a n r e c a l l ? A. I d o n ' t remember. I know t h a t t h e r e was i l l - f e e l i n g between them, and I d o n ' t know how Mary f e l t about it, b u t I t r y t o s t a y o u t of p e r s o n a l i t i e s . "Q. But to t h e b e s t of your knowledge, had t h i s been a long-standing feud between Mary Dybvik and h e r ? A. Yes, Mary r a n a nursing home, and h e r mother was t h e r e , and H j o r d i s came up and v i s i t e d , and I suppose they had arguments; and I d o n ' t know--like I s a y , I d o n ' t want t o g e t involved w i t h them, b u t she d i d n ' t l i k e h e r ." Before h e r d e a t h she executed a deed. H j o r d i s owned a ranch n e a r Roundup t h a t h e r b r o t h e r Trygvie had been managing. On August 2 7 , 1979, she deeded t h i s p r o p e r t y to h e r nephew, Richard Dybvik. Richard t e s t i f i e d t h a t H j o r d i s requested t h i s t r a n s - a c t i o n so she would be e l i g i b l e f o r Medicaid b e n e f i t s . Richard a g a i n c o n t a c t e d M r . Ask to do t h e l e g a l work. M r . Ask prepared t h e deed and gave it t o Richard who t h e n drove to Lewistown to g e t it executed. H e c o n t a c t e d an a t t o r n e y i n Lewistown who m e t w i t h H j o r d i s f o r t h e s i g n i n g . The same day Richard recorded t h e deed w i t h t h e M u s s e l s h e l l County Clerk and Recorder. E v e n t u a l l y , t h e a p p e l l a n t , Richard Dybvik, took s t e p s to f o r c e h i s f a t h e r and stepmother to v a c a t e t h e ranch and t h e r e a f t e r commenced t h i s a c t i o n f o r damages. The a p p e l l a n t argues t h a t t h e record w i l l n o t s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g of undue i n f l u e n c e . I n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h i s i s s u e he u r g e s t h i s Court to r e c o n s i d e r t h e s t a n d a r d of review of a District C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s . I n t h i s case t h e District Court adopted t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t verbatim. W h i l e w e have focused on t h i s s i t u a t i o n b e f o r e , Tomaskie v. Tomaskie (1981) I Mon t . -- I -- - . . , 625 P.2d 536, 539, 38 St.Rep. 416, 419, c a u t i o n i n g District Courts who r e l y " t o o h e a v i l y on t h e pro- posed f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s submitted by t h e winning p a r t y , ' ' w e a r e not compelled t o change t h e r u l e . "Findings of f a c t s h a l l n o t be set a s i d e u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . . . " Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. A s w e have noted b e f o r e , a l t h o u g h the f i n d i n g s may n o t t e c h n i c a l l y be t h e work p r o d u c t of t h e d i s t r i c t judge, once t h e y are s i g n e d t h e y become h i s . I n Re t h e Marriage of J e n s e n v. J e n s e n (1981) , - Mont . - - , 6 3 1 P.2d 700, 38 St.Rep. 1109; C i t y of B i l l i n g s v. P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission ( 1 9 8 1 ) , -- -- Mont . - , 631 P.2d 1295, 38 St.Rep. 1162. O t h e r d e c i s i o n s have f u r t h e r d e f i n e d t h e l i m i t s of o u r i n q u i r y . Of foremost importance, we cannot d e v i a t e from o u r f u n c t i o n as an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . Our f u n c t i o n s do n o t i n c l u d e a r e t r i a l of t h e case. W e w i l l not s u b s t i t u t e our judgment f o r t h a t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . W e are "'conf ined to d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t 1 t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law." Cameron v. Cameron ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 179 Mont. 219, 227, 587 P.2d 939, 944; In t h e M a t t e r of t h e Estate of LaTray ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - - Mont . - - -. - .-- , 598 P.2d 619, 36 St.Rep. 1514; Olson v. Westfork P r o p e r t i e s , I n c . ( 1 9 7 6 ) r 1 7 1 Mont. 154, 557 P.2d 821; Hornung v. Estate of L a g e r q u i s t ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 155 Mont. 412, 473 P.2d 541; S t a t e Highway Comm. v . W e s t Great F a l l s Flood C o n t r o l and Drainage D i s t r i c t ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 5 5 Mont. 157, 468 P.2d 753. W e have e l a b o r a t e d on t h i s s t a n d a r d numerous times and s e v e r a l w e l l - s e t t l e d p r i n c i p l e s have emerged. W e view t h e e v i - dence i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . Cameron v. Cameron , s u p r a ; Olson v. Wes t f o r k P r o p e r t i e s , I n c . , s u p r a ; H e l l i c k s o n v. B a r r e t t Mobile Home T r a n s p o r t , I n c . ( 1973 ) , 1 6 1 Mont. 455, 507 P.2d 523. "The e v i d e n c e may be i n h e r e n t l y weak and still be deemed ' s u b s t a n t i a l I and . . . s u b s t a n t i a l e v i - dence may c o n f l i c t w i t h o t h e r e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . " Campeau v. L e w i s ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 144 Mont. 543, 547, 398 P.2d 960, 962; ----- Cameron, 179 Mont. a t 228, 587 P.2d a t 945. With t h e above p r i n c i p l e s i n mind it is h e l p f u l to review t h e l a w d e a l i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h undue in£ l u e n c e . Undue in£ l u e n c e h a s been d e f i n e d by s e c t i o n 28-2-407, MCA: "Undue in£ l u e n c e c o n s i s t s i n : "(1) t h e use by one i n whom a c o n f i d e n c e is reposed by a n o t h e r or who h o l d s a r e a l or a p p a r e n t a u t h o r i t y o v e r him of such c o n f i d e n c e or a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e purpose of o b t a i n i n g an u n f a i r advantage 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 of mind; or " ( 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 a n o t h e r ' s n e c e s s i t i e s or d i s t r e s s ." I n e v a l u a t i n g whether t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g of "undue i n f l u e n c e " w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e deed w e f i n d s u b s e c t i o n 1 o f s e c t i o n 28-2-407, MCA, to be c o n t r o l l i n g . There is e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t H j o r d i s reposed c o n f i d e n c e i n h e r nephew, Richard Dybvik and t h a t pur- s u a n t t o t h e terms of t h e deed Richard gained an advantage o v e r H j o r d i s . While H j o r d i s was still a l i v e , she d i v e s t e d h e r s e l f i n h e r i n t e r e s t i n real p r o p e r t y and conveyed it t o R i c h a r d . The District Court t h e r e f o r e had e v i d e n c e t h a t R i c h a r d , i n a t r u s t r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h h i s a u n t , g a i n e d an u n f a i r advantage o v e r h e r which s u p p o r t s s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e deed. With r e s p e c t to t h e w i l l , a d i f f e r e n t test of undue i n f l u e n c e must be a p p l i e d . H j o r d i s , through t h e w i l l , is making a d i s p o s i - t i o n of p r o p e r t y to o c c u r a f t e r h e r d e a t h . The t e s t a m e n t a r y d i s p o s i t i o n c r e a t e s a con£ l i c t between Richard Dybvik and Mary Dybv i k . T h i s Court h a s h e l d on numerous o c c a s i o n s t h a t a w i l l may n o t b e d e f e a t e d on grounds of undue in£ l u e n c e u n l e s s : " t h e t e s t a t o r is induced, b y t h e means employed, to e x e c u t e an i n s t r u m e n t i n form and a p p e a r a n c e h i s w i l l , b u t i n r e a l i t y e x p r e s s i n g t e s t a m e n t a r y d i s p o s i t i o n s which he would n o t have v o l u n t a r i l y made, and t h a t to d e f e a t a w i l l , t h e undue i n f l u e n c e must have been d i r e c t e d toward t h e p a r t i c u l a r t e s t a m e n t a r y act and a t t h e t i m e t h e r e o f , or so n e a r t h e r e t o as to be o p e r a t i v e . I n t h e Matter of t h e Estate of Maricich ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 4 5 Mont. 146, 159, 400 P.2d 873, 880. Furthermore, as noted by t h i s Court i n Blackmer v. Blackmer ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 5 Mont. 69, 525 P.2d 559, undue i n f l u e n c e or incom- p e t e n c e is never presumed and must be proven, l i k e any o t h e r f a c t . I n Blackmer - a l t h o u g h t h e r e was a showing of an o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x e r c i s e undue i n f l u e n c e on t h e t e s t a t o r , it was n o t suf- f i c i e n t to prove undue in£ luence and i n v a l i d a t e the w i l l . Under t h e f a c t s of t h e Blackmer c a s e , t h e t e s t a t o r was an e l d e r l y per- s o n (as i n t h i s c a s e ) and had i n f i r m i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o l d a g e , i n c l u d i n g poor e y e s i g h t , f a i l i n g memory , o c c a s i o n a l con- f u s i o n and s e n i l i t y . These f a c t s d i d n o t r e n d e r t h e t e s t a t r i x t e s t a m e n t a l l y i n c a p a c i t a t e d , b u t were m a t t e r s t o be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n and c o r r o l a t e d with t h e a l l e g e d a c t s of in£ l u e n c e t o determine i f t h e acts amounted to undue in£ l u e n c e . Here, t h e u n c o n t r a d i c t e d testimony showed t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t , Richard, c a l l e d M r . Ask, t h e a t t o r n e y who had r e p r e s e n t e d H j o r d i s s i n c e t h e 1 9 6 0 1 s , and t h a t t h e c a l l was made a t h e r s p e c i f i c r e q u e s t and i n s t r u c t i o n s . There is n o t even t h e s l i g h t e s t s u g g e s t i o n i n t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t Richard p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of t h e w i l l or t h a t h e d i c t a t e d t h e w i l l ' s terms. I t would a p p e a r t o us, t h e con- v e r s e is t r u e s i n c e M r . Ask's testimony was not impeached. M r . Ask had known t h e t e s t a t o r f o r a p e r i o d of time and knew h e r f e e l i n g s r e g a r d i n g t h e Dybvik ranch. H e t e s t i f i e d about t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e terms of t h e w i l l and h e r r e a s o n s f o r l e a v i n g t h e ranch to Richard, h e r nephew. It was h i s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t on t h e day t h a t t h e w i l l was drawn, J u l y 1 0 , 1979, t h a t s h e was n o t under t h e i n f l u e n c e of any person whatsoever, and indeed t h a t she knew what she was doing and was m e n t a l l y no d i f f e r e n t t h a n she had been a t d i f f e r e n t times t h a t he had r e p r e s e n t e d h e r . Here, t h e r e is no f i n d i n g of t h e District Court nor any e v i d e n c e t o show " a m i r r o r e d p r i o r s o l i c i t a t i o n , " on t h e a p p e l l a n t , R i c h a r d ' s , p a r t . W e f i n d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s and o p i n i o n as to undue i n f l u e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e w i l l to be i n s u f - f i c i e n t , a s a m a t t e r of law, because t h e y f a i l to show t h a t a t t h e t i m e of t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h e w i l l , t h e proponent, d i d a spe- c i f i c act to procure t h e new w i l l or to in£ l u e n c e h i s a u n t , H j o r d i s . Without an a c t of procurement o r a s p e c i f i c a c t to i n f l u e n c e it is c l e a r t h a t a case of undue i n f l u e n c e was not e s t a b l i s h e d . W e r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t as to t h e w i l l undue i n £ l u e n c e was used by t h e a p p e l l a n t and r e i n s t a t e t h e l a s t w i l l and t e s t a m e n t . The case is remanded to t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The judgment of t h e District Court h o l d i n g t h a t t h e deed was i l l e g a l l y procured is upheld, t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t t h e w i l l and t h e power o f a t t o r n e y were o b t a i n e d by undue in£ l u e n c e is s e t a s i d e and t h e w i l l is r e i n s t a t e d and t h e cause is remanded f o r f u r t h e r pro- c e e d i n g s on t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t . We concur: u % 4 & 4 \ ~ & , ~ ~ ~ e 9 q Chief Justice Ju tices u