Case Title: In Re Estate of Urich

Citation: 194 Or. 429, 242 P.2d 204

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1952-04-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
Affirmed April 2, 1952.
*430 Donald H. Joyce, of Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
Peter A. Schwabe, of Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was C.T. Haas, of Portland.
Before BRAND, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, LATOURETTE, WARNER and TOOZE, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
TOOZE, J.
This is a proceeding to contest the alleged will of the late Theodore Urich, more commonly known as Ted Urich, who died at Portland, Oregon, on January 4, 1949. The contestants are Filip Juric, a brother, Mate Juric, a brother, Ante Dzelalija, Filip Dzelalija and Ante Juric, nephews, of decedent. Ante Dzelalija and Filip Dzelalija are the sons and sole surviving issue of Maria Dzelalija, a predeceased sister of decedent, and Ante Juric is the son and sole surviving issue of Sime Juric, a predeceased brother of decedent. The proponent is Albert Solari, the sole beneficiary under the alleged will, and also executor of the estate.
*431 On January 10, 1949, there was admitted to probate in the matter of the estate of Theodore Urich, deceased, by the circuit court for Multnomah county, probate department, an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of said decedent, and Albert Solari was named executor thereof. Letters testamentary were issued him in that behalf. Said purported will is in words and figures as follows:
In their petition to contest the will, petitioners alleged: (1) that decedent did not have testamentary capacity at the time the instrument was executed; and (2) that the instrument had been executed by decedent as the result of undue influence exercised upon him by the said Albert Solari. Upon the trial, petitioners made no attempt to establish testamentary incapacity on the part of decedent, but confined their attack to the charge of undue influence. The trial court found that undue influence had been exercised by Albert Solari, and that the purported instrument was the result of such undue influence, and was, therefore, void and of no effect. A decree was entered setting aside the probate of said purported will and revoking and cancelling the letters testamentary theretofore issued to the said Albert Solari. Proponent appeals.
*433 The evidence shows that decedent was a native of Yugoslavia and came to this country in 1913, locating in Portland. At that time the parents of Albert Solari were operating a boarding house in Portland, catering to former residents of Yugoslavia. Decedent boarded at the Solari home for a period of approximately 20 years, when, because of trouble he had with proponent's mother, he was, according to proponent, "kicked out". Over that period of 20 years decedent was in and out of Portland. For the first few years he followed the occupation of logging, being away in the logging camps for months at a time. In later years he worked in foundries within the city of Portland. Albert Solari was approximately two years of age when decedent first commenced to board with the Solari family. For more than 16 years immediately prior to his death, decedent lived and boarded elsewhere within the city of Portland.
However, Albert Solari testified that the friendly relations existing between him and decedent continued over the years, and that he habitually referred to decedent as "Uncle Ted", though having no blood relationship with him. He testified:
The evidence discloses that, before World War II, decedent did not correspond with his family in Yugoslavia. But following the termination of the war, a correspondence was begun and continued between him and his brothers in Yugoslavia and, in particular, with his nephew Ante Juric. Ted Urich could neither read nor write and, in writing to his relatives and in having their letters read to him, was forced to rely upon two of his intimate friends, Matt Celic and Blaise Turich. Turich testified that he had written 40 or 50 letters for decedent, addressed to his brothers and nephew; Celic wrote two. Both Celic and Turich testified to reading many letters received by Urich from Yugoslavia. Decedent sent money, clothing, and other items to his kin. He manifested a special interest in his nephew Ante Juric. As to this, Blaise Turich testified as follows:
As typical of the letters written by decedent to his brother Filip and to his nephew Ante Juric, we set forth one written on October 11, 1947, as follows:
The foregoing letter was written for the decedent by Matt Celic, and was identified by Celic on the witness stand.
Another letter of significance is that written to the nephew Ante Juric on September 12, 1948, approximately four months prior to the death of decedent. This letter was written for Urich by Blaise Turich and identified by him as a witness. It reads:
The evidence shows that Urich became ill with pneumonia about December 30, 1948, and entered the Physicians & Surgeons Hospital in Portland. He was *439 an extremely ill man, and oxygen was frequently administered to him in the hospital.
On December 30 one Melvin C. Lewis (whose surname was formerly Solari), a brother of Albert Solari, the proponent, discovered that Urich was in the hospital. About 2:30 p.m. of that day, Lewis went to the hospital to see him. As to what then occurred, Lewis testified:
On December 31, Lewis and his brother Albert were at the hospital. At that time the matter of decedent executing a will was discussed. The evidence discloses that Lewis telephoned Donald H. Joyce, an attorney of Portland, and having reached him, turned the telephone over to his brother, who gave Joyce the directions for preparation of the will. Joyce prepared the will as directed and took it to the hospital, where it was executed, with Lewis and one Wesley G. Lamer, administrator of the hospital, signing as witnesses. Joyce did not know Urich, nor did he talk with him. According to the testimony of the subscribing witnesses, the will was read to the decedent both in English and in his native tongue. Both testified to testamentary capacity. When the will was executed, there were present the decedent, Joyce, Lewis, Solari, and Lamer.
*440 The testimony of Lewis and Solari with respect to the preparation and execution of this purported will is somewhat enlightening. Lewis testified:
Solari testified:
Solari admitted that he did not inform any of Urich's friends of his serious illness. He also said that following decedent's death he examined all of his effects, and that he did not find any letters addressed to decedent from his family in Yugoslavia. He further asserted that at no time did decedent ever mention anything to him about his brothers and nephews. This is his testimony respecting those matters:
*444 Contestants maintain that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, a confidential relationship existed between proponent and decedent. They claim that this fact, combined with the part played by proponent as sole beneficiary under the will in the preparation and execution thereof, and the other circumstances disclosed by the evidence, created a presumption of undue influence, and that the burden of proof shifted to proponent to overcome that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence, which, they assert, he failed to do.
1. We are of the opinion that a confidential relationship did exist between Albert Solari and decedent at the time this alleged will was executed. Decedent was seriously ill. He had no relatives living in Portland. No friends, other than Solari and his brother, were near at hand to advise or to help. He had no independent legal advice. He was compelled to rely upon and trust them, if he was to place his dependence upon anyone; there was no one else. They owed him a duty of utmost good faith. In 57 Am Jur, Wills, 281, § 390, it is said:
2. Proponent, in his brief, says: "There is absolutely no direct evidence of undue influence in the *445 record in this cause." If direct evidence were essential to the proof of undue influence, it is doubtful that a successful attack upon a will on that ground could ever be made. The law does not make that requirement. Undue influence may be, and it generally is, established by circumstantial evidence. In the case of In re Porter's Estate, 192 Or 483, 235 P2d 894, 897, we said:
Also see Newman v. Stover, 187 Or 641, 213 P2d 137; 2 Page on Wills, 595, § 812; Rood on Wills 2d ed, 149, § 190.
3-5. Ordinarily, the burden of proof of undue influence is upon the party who asserts it. But there may be circumstances which cast upon the beneficiary the burden of disproving undue influence. Each case must be decided upon its own peculiar facts. There is no fixed rule that is decisive in all situations. If confidential relations are shown to exist between the testator and the beneficiary, slight evidence of additional facts may be sufficient to shift the burden to the beneficiary to disprove undue influence. In re Porter's Estate, supra; Trombly et al. v. McKenney, Ex., et al., 191 Or 90, 108, 228 P2d 417; Allen v. Breding, 181 Or 332, 181 P2d 783; 2 Page on Wills, 607, § 814.
6. In the instant case, in addition to the evidence disclosing a confidential relationship between the testator *446 and the sole beneficiary under the will, there is abundant evidence of strongly suspicious circumstances giving rise to a well-founded belief that undue influence was in fact exercised upon decedent by proponent, and that, by reason thereof, the testator was induced to execute the instrument which, although his, in outward form, is in reality not his will at all, but the will of the beneficiary. Such an instrument, in legal effect, is not a will at all. In re Porter's Estate, supra; 1 Page on Wills, 368, § 184.
What are some of those suspicious circumstances?
First, and perhaps most important, is the fact that Solari actively participated in the preparation and execution of the proposed will. He secured the services of his own attorney in that connection; an attorney who did not know the testator, and who held no communication whatever with him prior to the will's execution. He gave the only information given to the attorney as to what the contents of the will should be. He admitted that the testator had not told him to have himself appointed as executor to serve without bond, yet he told Joyce to put that in the will. He personally read the will to the testator in his native tongue. He had his brother sign as one of the witnesses, and arranged for the attendance of the other. The testimony does not disclose that testator actually requested either to act as a witness.
In the second place, Solari and his brother kept close tab on the testator for several hours immediately prior to the will's execution, and never notified any of testator's other friends of his condition, nor suggested that the decedent have some independent advice. Under the circumstances, good faith and fair dealing would seem to have demanded that proponent arrange for such independent advice before accepting testator's *447 offer to make him the sole beneficiary of his estate. In re Chesney's Estate, 102 Cal App2d 708, 711, 228 P2d 46, 48; 2 Page on Wills, 646, § 834.
Moreover, it is more than passing strange that at no time did Urich tell Solari about his relatives in Yugoslavia, if Solari is to be believed when he describes the close, confidential relationship existing between himself and decedent. In view of the intimate relationship as outlined by Solari, it is indeed odd that at some time Urich did not ask him to write a letter, or to read one he had received, or aid him in sending money and supplies to Yugoslavia, instead of relying entirely in those respects upon his friends Turich and Celic. This alleged silence on the part of Urich, if in fact there was such silence, just doesn't make sense; it does not square with the course of ordinary human conduct. Such testimony, in and of itself, creates a substantial doubt as to its accuracy. Did Solari deny all knowledge of the existence of decedent's relatives because of some theory he had that lack of such information would benefit him in this cause? For example, would it serve as an explanation of his failure to speak of those relatives when testator suggested a desire to make a will? Or was his story about the close, friendly relations existing between himself and Urich a mere figment of his own creation? His claim to close friendship is understandable, as that seemed most necessary to explain the fact of his being named the sole beneficiary. Urich only could have answered these questions, but his lips were sealed in death.
Furthermore, there is no doubt that Urich received many letters from his relatives during the latter years of his life. It seems improbable that he destroyed all of them, particuarly, those from his favorite nephew. *448 Yet, according to Solari, when he went through decedent's belongings, he did not find even one of these letters. That is difficult to believe. In the light of all the other facts and circumstances in the case, the inference may well and justly be drawn that he did find some of those letters and, to protect his own interests, either destroyed or secreted them.
We also deem it a very suspicious and unnatural circumstance that, in making his will, the testator forgot entirely about his family in Yugoslavia, whose welfare had so recently been of such manifest interest and concern to him, and bequeathed his entire estate to an alleged friend. If testator, in truth and in fact, intended to by-pass his relatives in favor of friends, why did he overlook his closest friend, Blaise Turich; the man who wrote and read so many letters for him, and who assisted in getting together and mailing the clothing and other items which were sent at different times to members of the family in Yugoslavia?
And finally, it must be borne in mind that, at the time this alleged will was executed, decedent was dangerously ill; he was weak in body and without doubt somewhat affected mentally, though not to the extent of producing testamentary incapacity. But in his poor physical condition he obviously was much more subject to being influenced than would have been the case, had he been well. In In re Brown's Estate, 165 Or 575, 585, 108 P2d 775, the late Justice BELT said:
It is unnecessary for us in this opinion to review our former decisions wherein the question of undue influence was involved. The rules of law respecting that question are firmly established in this state. They are discussed quite fully in In re Porter's Estate, supra. However, we do wish to commend counsel for proponent for the ingenuity he displayed in the preparation of the very helpful chart attached to appellant's reply brief, in which our prior decisions in will-contest cases are analyzed.
7-9. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, and the rules of law applicable thereto, the proponent had the burden of disproving undue influence. The conscientious and experienced trial judge found that the alleged will was not in fact the last will and testament of the said Theodore Urich, deceased, but was the result of undue influence exercised upon the testator by Albert Solari and other persons acting under, for, and through him. The trial judge heard the witnesses testify and was able to observe their conduct and demeanor on the witness stand. His conclusions are entitled to great weight. They should not be disturbed on this appeal.
The decree is affirmed.