Case Title: In Re Estate of Dull

Citation: 184 Kan. 233, 336 P.2d 435

Docket Number: 41,181

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1959-03-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
184 Kan. 233 (1959)
336 P.2d 435
In the Matter of the Estate of Florence Dull, Deceased.
MARTIN HALFMANN and MARTHA HALFMANN, Appellees,
v.
AUBREY EARHART, Executor; MARTHA SCHEUMAN, CLAUDE MORRIS and THELMA HAWKS, Devisees, Appellants.
No. 41,181

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed March 7, 1959.
*234 John R. Alden, of Hutchinson, argued the cause, and Aubrey Earhart and B.A. Earhart, both of Hutchinson, were with him on the briefs for the appellants.
Ralph J. Thorne, of Hutchinson, argued the cause, and Charles E. Rauh and John A. Robinson, both of Hutchinson, were with him on the briefs for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
WERTZ, J.:
This was an action in the nature of specific performance to establish and enforce an alleged oral contract between appellees Martin and Martha Halfmann, and Florence Dull, deceased, whereby decedent agreed to will them her farm in consideration of their continued care and services for the remainder of her lifetime. On the issues joined, the trial court found a contract had been so made, and ordered specific performance thereof. From a judgment rendered in accordance therewith, Aubrey Earhart, executor of the estate of Florence Dull, deceased, and the devisees of decedent's last will and testament, made only a few months before her death, appeal.
In the interests of brevity, the story of this litigation may best be related by incorporating the trial court's well-written findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon which its judgment was based.
"FINDINGS OF FACT
[description]
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
[description]
Appellants contend the judgment of the trial court should be reversed on the ground that as a matter of law appellees' evidence was insufficient to establish the contract by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.
It is true that in order to sustain their right of recovery appellees must clearly show the existence of a contract and compliance therewith, which in equity and good conscience they have a right to enforce. The rule relative to clear and convincing evidence in proof of oral contracts similar to the one herein does not extend to the point of requiring that each and all of the provisions of the contract be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a landmark case, Anderson v. Anderson, 75 Kan. 117, 88 Pac. 743, we held:
It is further stated, at page 127, that it is not essential to the intervention of equity that the agreement be established by direct evidence. It may be established by such facts and circumstances as will raise an implication that it was made, and may have reinforcement from the evidence of the conduct of the parties at the time and subsequently.
We again stated in Bichel v. Oliver, 77 Kan. 696, 95 Pac. 396:
In Woltz v. First Trust Co., 135 Kan. 253, 260, 9 P.2d 665, we held:
In the case of In re Estate of Wert, 165 Kan. 49, 193 P.2d 253, the aforementioned cases, as well as others of like import, were reviewed, discussed and adhered to. We stated:
From a review of the cited cases and of many others, it appears this court, in cases similar in character to this one, has recognized the rule that the express terms of the contract need not be established by direct evidence, that all the facts and circumstances may be considered, and that performance is not only essential to recovery but is one of the circumstances which should be taken into consideration in determining whether a contract was entered into.
In the instant case, the evidence to support the trial court's findings and judgment leaves no room for doubt. Conceding that such evidence must be clear, satisfactory and convincing, there is no reason or excuse for ignoring all the evidence in the case, much of which comes from disinterested persons. If the evidence in this case is to be disregarded, then equitable principles might as well be abolished.
No useful purpose would be gained by narrating the testimony of the many witnesses. Suffice it to say, in the latter part of 1944, Mrs. Dull became ill with pneumonia and stayed at the farm with the Halfmanns for three weeks, at which time Mrs. Dull stated that she was very grateful for the Halfmanns' care of her; that they had treated her better than if she had been their mother and *239 the only way she could repay them was by giving them the farm. Joan Halfmann DiNitto testified there was an understanding between the Halfmanns and Mrs. Dull that if they would do as they had always done and would continue to take care of her as they had in the past, she would give them the farm.
On October 27, 1944, Mrs. Dull executed her will, by the terms of which she devised the farm in question to the Halfmanns, and delivered a copy thereof to them, which they placed in the family Bible, where it remained until late in 1955. Subsequent to the delivery of a copy of the will and in reliance upon the contract as confirmed by the will, the Halfmanns made extensive and valuable improvements on the farm which were in excess of $4,000. During the period from the delivery of a copy of the will in 1944 until shortly before the death of Mrs. Dull in December, 1955, at the age of eighty-six, both the Halfmanns and Mrs. Dull continued to act upon the contract, and each understood the other to be irrevocably bound. Mrs. Dull told disinterested witnesses she had made a will wherein she was leaving the farm to the Halfmanns and the place was theirs when she was gone. She told these witnesses how kind and affectionate the Halfmanns had been and were to her, related all the things they had done for her, and mentioned the improvements they had made on the farm. In the summer of 1955, Mrs. Dull told Joan DiNitto that "the will stands as it is and it always will stand as I have made it."
In Nelson v. Schoonover, 89 Kan. 388, 392, 131 Pac. 147, we stated that a will duly executed in pursuance of an agreement based upon a valuable consideration becomes itself, in a sense, an enforceable contract. The testator cannot, by making a later will, escape the obligation confirmed by the first one. The delivery of the will to the beneficiary has been treated as of importance in emphasizing the contractual feature of the transaction.
In view of the above and other testimony disclosed in the record, we are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficiently clear and convincing to support the judgment and findings of the trial court.
Appellants further contend that if an oral contract was made, the appellees breached the contract. The record does not support appellant's contention.
It follows that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.