Case Title: Estate of Kester

Citation: 383 A.2d 914, 477 Pa. 243

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1978-03-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
477 Pa. 243 (1978) 383 A.2d 914 ESTATE of Olive May KESTER, Deceased. Appeal of Clarence Walter KESTER. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted January 17, 1978. Decided March 23, 1978. *244 George I. Puhak, Hazleton, for appellant. Richard I. Bernstein, Falvello, Ustynoski, Giuliani & Bernstein, Hazleton, for appellees, Christ Church, United Church of Christ, Conyngham, Pa. Before EGAN, C.J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ. MANDERINO, Justice. The issue in this appeal is whether Henry C. Kester and Olive M. Kester, husband and wife, in executing a joint will, *245 also entered into a contract in the same instrument whereby each gave up the right to revoke his or her testamentary disposition in the event one of them predeceased the other. On July 6, 1955, Henry C. Kester and Olive M. Kester executed the following joint will. The pertinent paragraphs to which appellant directs our attention have been underlined. KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, THAT WE, HENRY CLAY KESTER and OLIVE MAY KESTER, husband and wife of 523 North Broad Street, West Hazleton, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, being of sound mind, memory and understanding, do make, publish and declare the following as and for our last Will and Testament, hereby revoking and making void any and all former wills by us heretofore made. Subject to the contingency hereinafter stated, I, the said HENRY CLAY KESTER, do hereby give, devise and bequeath all my estate, real, personal or mixed, of which I may die seized or possessed, to my wife, OLIVE MAY KESTER, her heirs and assigns, absolutely and forever, and I hereby appoint her sole executrix of this, my last Will and Testament. Subject to the contingency hereinafter stated, I, the said OLIVE MAY KESTER, do hereby give, devise and bequeath all my estate, real, personal or mixed, of which I may die seized or possessed, to my husband, HENRY CLAY KESTER, his heirs and assigns, absolutely and forever, and I hereby appoint him sole executor of this, my last Will and Testament. In the event, however, that we shall both die as the result of a common accident or disease, we shall be deemed to have both died at the same time (even though there be a reasonable interval of time between our respective deaths), and in this event, or in the event either one of us survives the other, it is our wish and mutual understanding *246 that we give, devise and bequeath our entire estate as follows: *247 On November 6, 1960, approximately five years after the execution of the above will, Henry C. Kester died. Approximately eleven years later, on July 29, 1971, Henry C. Kester's widow, Olive M. Kester, executed the following last will and testament: To pay the net income therefrom to the United Church of Christ on Conyngham, Pennsylvania. Olive M. Kester died on June 1, 1972, approximately ten months after executing the above will. Upon petition of Clarence Walter Kester, son of Henry C. Kester and Olive M. Kester, the last will and testament of Olive M. Kester dated July 29, 1971, was admitted to probate and letters testamentary were issued to the son who had been named executor. The events which followed were described by the trial court as follows: At the hearing on the petition for adjudication and petition for distribution, the parties agreed that they had no testimony to present and that the issue would be submitted on the record. Subsequently, the trial court denied the executor's petition for adjudication and also the petition for distribution. This appeal followed. Appellant, Clarence Walter Kester, contends in this appeal that the joint will executed by his parents in 1955 contains within its four corners a contract whereby his mother and father gave up any right that each had to revoke the testamentary disposition that each had made in the joint will. *250 In Pennsylvania a joint will may be revoked by either of the co-makers provided the parties have not contracted to give up the power of revocation. The fact that the parties entered into a joint will is insufficient to establish a contract not to revoke. As we said in Rhodes Estate, 277 Pa. 450, 453, 121 A. 327 (1923): Appellant contends that the 1955 joint will on its face expressed the terms of a contract whereby the parties to the joint will gave up their power of revocation. Appellant relies on two parts of the 1955 will. The primary portion of the joint will relied upon is the fourth unnumbered paragraph which reads as follows: We cannot agree that the language of the above paragraph expresses "a clear and definite contract" by the parties not to revoke the joint will. Rhodes Estate, supra. *251 It is true that the parties spoke of a "mutual understanding." These words, however, fall far short of being "unequivocal." Words more definite than those used in the present case have been held insufficient to show the existence of a clear and definite contract not to revoke. In Hoffert's Estate, 65 Pa.Super. 515 (1917) a joint will wherein the parties stated: was held not to be sufficiently clear and definite to establish a contract not to revoke. When it is claimed that someone has contractually limited his testamentary freedom, our standard of proof is a demanding one. In the case of a joint will in which extrinsic evidence is relied upon to prove the existence of a contract, we have held that the proof must be "clear and convincing." Rhodes Estate, supra. Likewise, in cases not involving joint wills, but involving the issue of whether there existed a contract to make a will or not to revoke a will, the rule has been that evidence of the existence of a contract must be clear and convincing. Nakoneczny Estate, 456 Pa. 327, 319 A.2d 893 (1974); Vanjentic Estate, 453 Pa. 1, 306 A.2d 300 (1973); Fahringer v. Strine, 420 Pa. 48, 216 A.2d 82 (1966). Appellant also relies on the words of the will immediately before the signatures which are: "IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this sixth day of July, A.D. 1955." Appellant argues that these words are generally used in contracts and not in wills. Although such a suggestion is made in Herr Estate, 400 Pa. 90, 161 A.2d 32 (1960), whatever the validity of the suggestion it has no applicability in the case before us. The same language was used by Olive M. Kester when she executed her 1971 will which obviously was not intended to be a contract since no other party was involved. In the 1955 joint will the parties at no time used language indicating that the testamentary disposition of one was being made in consideration of the testamentary disposition of the other. We find that the language used in the *252 instrument is insufficient to definitely and clearly establish a contract between the parties to give up the power each had to revoke his testamentary dispositions. Decree affirmed. Each party pay own costs.