Case Title: ESTATE OF WEIDNER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1981-05-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 80-432 I N T H E SUPREME COU4T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1981 I N T H E M A T T E R O F T H E ESTATE O F L E O N A WEIDNER, Deceased. Appeal from: The D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Nineteenth 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 o f Lincoln, The Honorable Robert H o l t e r , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: W i l l i a m s and Sverdrup, Libby, Vontana Marc Buyske argued, Libby, Montana For Respondent : Fennessy, Crocker, Harman & Bostock, Libby, Montana Mark Fennessy argued, Libby, Montana Submitted: A p r i l 21, 1981 Decided : MAY 1 3 I98\ F i l e d : MkV 1.3 1 9 8 1 M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . P e t i t i o n e r Gale Weidner a p p e a l s from a judgment e n t e r e d i n District Court, Lincoln County, h o l d i n g t h a t t h e 1954 w i l l of Leona Weidner was i r r e v o c a b l e and a d m i t t i n g t h a t w i l l t o p r o b a t e . Leona Weidner and E. J. Weidner, p a r e n t s of Gale Weidner and L o r r a i n e Brown, executed a j o i n t w i l l i n 1954. The w i l l l e f t a l l p r o p e r t y t o t h e s u r v i v i n g spouse, and provided t h a t upon t h e s u r v i v o r ' s d e a t h , t h e i r son would r e c e i v e f i v e d o l l a r s , because "he [ h a s ] been provided f o r a l r e a d y , " and t h a t t h e i r d a u g h t e r would r e c e i v e t h e remainder of t h e p r o p e r t y . E. J. Weidner d i e d i n 1957; Leona Weidner r e c e i v e d pro- p e r t y p u r s u a n t t o t h e j o i n t w i l l . Leona d i e d on February 14, 1980, and L o r r a i n e Brown, t h e s u r v i v i n g d a u g h t e r , s o u g h t to pro- b a t e t h e 1954 w i l l . However, t h e s u r v i v i n g s o n , Gale Weidner, p e t i t i o n e d t h e c o u r t f o r a formal d e t e r m i n a t i o n of i n t e s t a c y . He produced an unexecuted copy of a second w i l l , t h e o r i g i n a l of which was p u r p o r t e d l y executed i n 1965 b y Leona Weidner. The 1965 w i l l c o n t a i n s a s t a n d a r d r e v o c a t i o n c l a u s e . The d i s t r i c t judge found t h a t t h e 1965 w i l l w a s " a p p a r e n t l y e x e c u t e d ." However, having a l s o found t h a t t h e 1954 w i l l was b o t h a w i l l and a c o n t r a c t , he determined t h a t t h e 1954 w i l l was i r r e v o c a b l e and was e n t i t l e d to p r o b a t e , d e s p i t e t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e 1965 w i l l . Gale Weidner a p p e a l s from t h e o r d e r a l l o w i n g p r o b a t e of t h e 1954 w i l l . L o r r a i n e Brown c r o s s - a p p e a l s , c l a i m i n g t h a t s h e s h o u l d have been awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s . W e a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court a d m i t t i n g t h e 1954 w i l l t o p r o b a t e and remand t h e c a u s e f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a t t o r n e y f e e s . The p a r t i e s raise s e v e r a l i s s u e s on a p p e a l : 1) Was t h e 1954 w i l l c o n t r a c t u a l i n n a t u r e and i n c a p a b l e o f r e v o c a t i o n ? 2 ) Is t h e r e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to show due e x e c u t i o n of t h e 1965 w i l l ? 3 ) Did t h e 1965 w i l l revoke t h e 1954 w i l l ? 4 ) Does s e c t i o n 72-12-206, MCA, a l l o w respondent t o r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s ? Montana l a w p r o v i d e s t h a t a j o i n t w i l l is v a l i d , h u t t h a t it inay he revoked a t any t i m e . S e c t i o n 72-11-201, MCA. D e s p i t e s i m i l a r s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s , many j u r i s d i c t i o n s have provided by c a s e l a w t h a t a j o i n t w i l l made p u r s u a n t to a c o n t r a c t is n o t - - r e v o c a b l e by t h e s u r v i v i n g testator, o r more p r e c i s e l y , t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t is i r r e v o c a b l e and can be enforced i n a c o u r t of e q u i t y a l t h o u g h t h e w i l l is deemed revoked. 97 C. J.S. W i l l s § 1366 ( a ) ; C o l l a r d v. C o l l e y ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 92 I d . 789, 451 P.2d 535, 540; Lindley v . Lindley ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 67 N.M. 439, 356 P.2d 455, 457; R o l l s v. A l l e n ( 1 9 2 8 ) , 204 C a l . 604, 269 P. 450, 451-452. The burden is on t h e p a r t y a s s e r t i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e c o n t r a c t , and it must be shown by c l e a r , c o n v i n c i n g , and s a t i s f a c t o r y e v i d e n c e . L i n d l e y , s u p r a , 67 N.M. a t 439, 356 P.2d a t 457; Coffey v. P r i c e (Okla. 1 9 6 3 ) , 380 P.2d 537, 539. See also 169 ALR 62, 65. The d i s t r i c t judge found t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e showed t h e e x i s t e n c e of a c o n t r a c t . W e need n o t d e t e r m i n e whether t h a t f i n d i n g is supported by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . W e h o l d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l does not e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e 1965 w i l l w a s d u l y e x e c u t e d ; t h e r e f o r e t h e 1954 w i l l was n o t revoked by t h e 1965 w i l l and t h e 1954 w i l l is e n t i t l e d to p r o b a t e . Montana law r e q u i r e s t h a t a w i l l be d u l y e x e c u t e d , and p r o v i d e s as f o l l o w s : " . . . e v e r y w i l l s h a l l be i n w r i t i n g signed by t h e t e s t a t o r o r i n t h e t e s t a t o r ' s name by some o t h e r person i n t h e t e s t a t o r ' s p r e s e n c e and by h i s d i r e c t i o n and s h a l l be signed by a t least two p e r s o n s each of whom w i t n e s s e d e i t h e r t h e s i g n i n g o r t h e t e s t a t o r ' s acknowledgment of t h e s i g n a t u r e o r of t h e w i l l . " S e c t i o n 72-2-302, MCA. The burden is on t h e proponent of t h e w i l l to show due e x e c u t i o n . S e c t i o n 72-3-310, MCA. In a c o n t e s t e d case, a t least one of t h e a t t e s t i n g w i t n e s s e s must t e s t i f y . S e c t i o n 72-3-309, MCA. The a t t o r n e y who d r a f t e d t h e 1965 w i l l , t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e w i t n e s s e d Leona Weidner's s i g n i n g of t h e w i l l . H e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was " q u i t e c e r t a i n " t h a t he w a s h i m s e l f a n a t t e s t i n g w i t n e s s . H e was n o t c e r t a i n who t h e o t h e r w i t n e s s was, a l t h o u g h he t e s t i f i e d t h a t he " b e l i e v e d " t h a t it w a s h i s s e c r e t a r y , Winifred H o s t e t l e r . Mrs. Hostetler d i d n o t t e s t i f y a t t r i a l and M r . W i l l i a m s i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h h e r , she d i d n o t recall t h e s i g n i n g of t h e w i l l . Based on t h i s t e s t i m o n y , t h e d i s t r i c t judge found t h a t "Leona A. Weidner i n 1965 made a n o t h e r w i l l . . . T h i s w i l l a p p a r e n t l y was f u l l y executed by Leona A. Weidner, a l t h o u g h t h e d a t e and names of t h e w i t n e s s e s are unknown. " W e f i n d t h a t t h e w i l l was n o t d u l y e x e c u t e d . The d r a f t e r was a b l e t o t e s t i f y w i t h c e r t a i n t y o n l y to h i s own acts w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e w i l l ; he could n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e r e was a second w i t n e s s who had witnessed e i t h e r t h e s i g n i n g by t h e testa- tor o r t h e testator's acknowledgement of h e r s i g n a t u r e of t h e w i l l . W e f i n d i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g t h a t t h e 1965 w i l l was " a p p a r e n t l y " f u l l y e x e c u t e d . Although t h e r e may have been s u b s t a n t i a l compliance with t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s , t h e r e was n o t s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e t r i e r o f f a c t t o w a r r a n t t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , w e f i n d t h a t t h e 1965 w i l l could n o t revoke t h e 1954 w i l l . The 1954 w i l l was p r o p e r l y admitted t o p r o b a t e . W e d e t e r m i n e t h a t respondent is e n t i t l e d to h e r a t t o r n e y f e e s . S e c t i o n 72-12-206, MCA, p r o v i d e s : "Fees and e x p e n s s -- by whom p a i d . When t h e v a l i d i t y o r p r o b a t e o f a w i l l is c o n t e s t e d t h r o u g h c o u r t a c t i o n , t h e f e e s and e x p e n s e s must b e p a i d by t h e p a r t y c o n t e s t i n g t h e v a l i d i t y or p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l , i f t h e w i l l i n p r o b a t e is confirmed. I f t h e p r o b a t e is revoked, t h e costs must be paid by t h e p a r t y who r e s i s t e d t h e revo- c a t i o n or o u t of t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e d e c e d e n t , as t h e c o u r t d i r e c t s . " Here t h e d i s t r i c t judge con£ irmed t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e w i l l i n p r o b a t e . Thus r e s p o n d e n t is s t a t u t o r i l y e n t i t l e d to h e r f e e s and expense. T h i s Court h a s not addressed t h e i s s u e of what c o n s t i t u t e s " f e e s and expenses" as contemplated by t h i s s t a t u t e . I n t h e r e c e n t case of Leaseamerica C o r p o r a t i o n of Wisconsin v. S t a t e of Montana (19811, Mont. , 625 P.2d 68, 38 St.Rep. 398, we d i s c u s s e d t h e term " l e g a l e x p e n s e s w and determined t h a t l e g a l expenses i n c l u d e d a t t o r n e y f e e s , as expenses of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . W e hold t h a t "expenses" as used i n s e c t i o n 72-12-206, MCA, l i k e w i s e encompasses a t t o r n e y f e e s as p a r t of t h e expense of t h e proceeding to confirm t h e p r o b a t e of a w i l l . T h i s cause is remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s i n accor- dance w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: