Case Title: ESTATE OF POWERS

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1973-10-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12417 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T OF THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1973 I N THE M A T T E R O F THE ESTATE O F BUDOIN E. POWERS, Deceased. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Berger, Anderson, S i n c l a i r and Murphy, B i l l i n g s , Montana James J. S i n c l a i r argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Crowley, Kilbourne, Haughey, Hanson and Gallagher, B i l l i n g s , Montana Cale Crowley argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondent: Robert C. Brogan, B i l l i n g s , Montana Keefer and Roybal, B i l l i n g s , Montana N e i l Keefer argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: September 12, 1973 Decided :QCT 3 0 1973 BCT 3 0 1973 F i l e d : M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court, This i s an appeal from a judgment denying the probate of t h e w i l l of Budoin E. Powers, dated December 9, 1971. A n e a r l i e r w i l l dated December 18, 1969, was admitted t o probate. A motion f o r new t r i a l was denied. The w i l l contest was t r i e d before a jury which returned a special verdict finding t h a t Budoin Powers was not competent t o execute a w i l l on December 9, 1971; t h a t undue influence had been exerted on her; t h a t the w i l l was procured by fraud; t h a t the deceased did not acknowledge t o the witnesses t o the w i l l t h a t it was her l a s t w i l l and testament; and, t h a t it was not properly executed, More w i l l be said l a t e r i n t h i s Opinion concerning the special verdict. Four issues a r e raised on appeal: (1) Failure of the t r i a l court t o grant proponents' motion f o r a directed verdict, made both a t the close of contestants' case and a t the close of a11 of the evidence on the grounds t h a t t h e r e was no competent substantial evidence supporting a holding of i n v a l i d i t y of t h e w i l l . (2) The submission of a special verdict when there w a s no competent substantial evidence t o warrant consideration by a jury. (3) The special verdict was i n d i r e c t c o n f l i c t with a given instruction. (4) The giving and refusing of c e r t a i n jury instructions, A s background f o r our discussion, the following f a c t s a r e s e t forth: Budoin Powers was married twice during her lifetime, giving b i r t h t o two separate and d i s t i n c t families. She was divorced from Clarence Shelden around 1940, and had s i x small children t o support. She subsequently married T. R. Powers, a man 23 years her senior and an established rancher. The Shelden children ap- parently lived on the Powers ranch only u n t i l they were old enough t o go on t h e i r own. They then went t h e i r separate ways and there was l i t t l e communication between them and t h e i r mother f o r many years. Budoin E. Powers had f i v e children by her marriage t o Thomas R. Powers: Patrick Powers, Penny Powers (Mrs. Anthony Bear ~ o n ' t Walk), Paul Powers, Danny Powers and Darwin Powers. These children were raised on the Powers ranch near Wyola. After the death of T. R. Powers the family continued t o operate t h e ranch u n t i l it was ultimately leased i n 1967 t o L i t t l e Horn Land and Livestock Company of Wyola. T. R. Powers, the f a t h e r of contestants, died i n 1964. H i s l a s t w i l l and testament dated May 22, 1958, l e f t another ranch s i t u a t e i n Glacier County i n t r u s t f o r h i s f i v e children born of h i s marriage t o Budoin Powers. The remainder of h i s e s t a t e was l e f t t o Budoin Powers, with a proviso t h a t i f she predeceased him the remainder would be held i n t r u s t f o r the f i v e Powers children t o be distributed when the youngest reached the age of majority. Budoin Powers likewise executed a w i l l i n 1958. Her e n t i r e e s t a t e a t t h a t time was l e f t t o the f i v e Powers children i n t r u s t t o be distributed when the youngest attained the age of majority. After the death of T. R. Powers, Budoin Powers executed a second w i l l on January 19, 1967. This w i l l l e f t $5,000, payable out of l i f e insurance proceeds only, t o each of the s i x Shelden children. The remainder of her e s t a t e was placed i n t r u s t f o r the f i v e Powers children t o be distributed t o them when t h e youngest attained the age of majority. O n December 18, 1969, Budoin Powers executed a t h i r d w i l l . I n t h i s w i l l she, f o r the f i r s t time, enumerated the s i x Shelden children. The 1969 w i l l l e f t c e r t a i n royalty and mineral i n t e r e s t s t o Montana S t a t e College a t Bozeman and t o the Shelden children. She again l e f t t o the Shelden children the sum of $5,000 each, payable out of l i f e insurance proceeds only. The remainder of her e s t a t e was l e f t t o t h e Powers children, excluding Patrick, i n t r u s t , f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n when the youngest attained the age of majority. O n December 9, 1971, Budoin Powers executed y e t another w i l l . I n t h i s w i l l , with the sole exception of a $10,000 t r u s t f o r Penny Bear, the Powers children were disinherited. Budoin Powers died i n Billings, Montana, on June 20, 1972, a t the age of 60. O n June 27, 1972, one week a f t e r her death, p e t i t i o n f o r probate of the w i l l dated December 9, 1971, was f i l e d i n Yellowstone County. O n July 7, 1972, the f i v e children of Budoin Powers and T. R. Powers f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n opposition t o probate of t h a t w i l l . The 1958 w i l l of T. R. Powers named Budoin Powers a s Trustee of t h e Glacier County ranch. The trust named the Powers children a s beneficiaries and was t o terminate i n September 1973, when the youngest c h i l d reached the age of majority. A s it happened the age of majority was lowered by l e g i s l a t i v e action and the t r u s t was terminated sooner. The w i l l being contested here was executed on December 9, 1971. The t e s t a t r i x , Budoin Powers, executed documents e f f e c t i v e l y d i s t r i b u t i n g the Glacier County ranch t r u s t a s s e t s t o the Powers children on December 8, 1971. A s t o the w i l l of December 9, 1971, the events leading t o its execution appear from the record: J. H. Kilbourne, Esquire, had drafted prior w i l l s f o r both T. R. Powers and Budoin E. Powers, including the w i l l of December 18, 1969 of Budoin Powers. The w i l l here contested was drafted i n f i n a l form on November 18, 1971, although not executed by Budoin E. Powers u n t i l December 9, 1971. The two witnesses were Robert Lee and Kemp Wilson, attorneys associated with J. H. Kilbourne, and with the law firm of Crowley, Kilbourne, Haughey, Hanson & Gallagher. Kilbourne f i r s t referred Budoin E. Powers t o Robert Lee on l e g a l matters i n t h e spring of 1971. A t t h a t t i m e Lee represented her i n a guardianship proceeding; i n a municipal court case; and had considerable contact with her concerning the handling of the Glacier County ranch t r u s t created i n the w i l l of T. R. Powers for the benefit of the Powers children, contestants here. O n October 17, 1971, Budoin Powers was taken t o the inten- sive care unit a t the hospital a s a r e s u l t of a heart attack. O n October 20, 1971, Kilbourne requested Lee t o go see her con- cerning a new w i l l . Lee went t o the hospital on that date, advised the hospital personnel that he had legal matters t o dis- cuss with Budoin Powers and was permitted entry into the intensive care unit for that purpose. Here, we digress somewhat t o bring i n other factors. Proponent Thelma Shelden Daly, 37 years of age, l e f t the Powers ranch when she was 13 or 14 years of age and went t o l i v e with a sister i n Idaho. When she was almost 16 she became gain- f u l l y employed i n Seattle, Washington for about four years, u n t i l she married. She returned every year thereafter t o v i s i t her mother. She stayed a t the Rimrock Lodge and a t her half s i s t e r ' s home (Penny Powers Bear), during her mother's illness. Shortly a f t e r her mother's f i r s t heart attack, a t her mother's request, she removed a l l of her mother's belongings from penny's home. When her mother l e f t the hospital on November 4, 1971, her mother took the things back t o Penny's home where she went t o l i v e because the doctor specified that she should be accompanied by someone. The day before Bedoin powers' second heart attack, November 18, 1971, she went t o a motel t o stay with Thelma Shelden Daly and it was from that motel that she called M r . Lee. A t that time Thelma was planning t o take her mother back to Portland t o stay with her. After her mother had her second heart attack on November 19, Thelma stayed i n Billings u n t i l November 31, a t which time she returned t o her home i n Portland and did not return t o Billings u n t i l December 23. O n October 20, 1971, when Lee went t o the hospital t o t a l k with Budoin Powers, Thelma Shelden Daly was i n the hospital corridor when he arrived, but Lee alone went into the intensive care unit t o t a l k t o Budoin Powers. Exhibit 1 i s the handwritten note Lee made during h i s conversation with Budoin Powers; Exhibit 2 i s the note Lee dictated on the same day i n h i s office addressed t o Kilbourne covering h i s conversation with Budoin Powers. Budoin Powers could not remember birthdates of a l l eleven of her children, nor the married name of one of the Shelden children who had been divorced and remarried more than once. She was not, however, confused; and Lee had no difficulty nor problem conversing with her. She told Lee t o get the birthdates from the 1969 w i l l , or from Thelma Daly who would a s s i s t him. Lee was not certain whether or not he got the birthdates from Thelma, from Budoin Powers, o r from the old w i l l . H e did know definitely that he had not told Thelma Daly about the w i l l or i t s contents; that Thelma Daly did not help him in preparing the w i l l i n any way; that she might o r might not have entered the hospital room while he was there, because Budoin Powers occasionally called either Thelma or nurses i n for various matters during the times that Lee was there; but he knew definitely that Thelma was never i n the room when he dis- cussed with Budoin Powers the substantive dispositive provisions of the w i l l . Lee had factual investigations t o make t o carry out the wishes expressed by Budoin Powers but had an i n i t i a l f i n a l d r a f t ready about October 28, when they expected the w i l l t o be executed on October 30. When Budoin Powers began t o mend, it was decided not t o go ahead with the w i l l a t that time. Thinking of the possibility of executing the w i l l about October 30, Lee on October 27, 1971, telephoned the attending physician, D r . Byorth, and inquired whether there was any medical reason why Budoin Powers could not execute her w i l l , and was advised that there was no such reason. The fee b i l l r e f l e c t s the telephone conversation with D r . Byorth on October 27, and D r . Byorth confirmed that he had received such a c a l l . In addition to testifying that he had received the telephone c a l l from Attorney Lee i n October, D r . Byorth referred t o notes he had made upon the admission of Budoin Powers t o the hospital in October and h i s note of October 30 to the effect that she was I t oriented as t o person, place and time". H e recalled h i s note of October 30 was made because that was the date anticipated for the execution of the w i l l . ~ e e ' s testimony was that when he learned Budoin Powers was on the mend and there was no urgency, it was decided not t o go ahead with the w i l l a t that time. Furthermore, a f t e r taking care of some of the administrative matters t o see whether or not her plans were feasible, he t e s t i f i e d he "got back with her, oh, on two o r three times while she was s t i l l i n the hospital". Lee had numerous telephone conversations with Budoin Powers a f t e r she l e f t the hospital November 4, 1971, and he completed the final d r a f t of the w i l l which she intended t o execute in the office on November 18 or 19, 1971. Two of the contestants, Paul Powers and Penny Bear, who w i l l obtain substantial amounts of money by the revocation of the w i l l , t e s t i f i e d concerning Budoin Powers' condition while i n the hospital a f t e r her f i r s t heart attack. Paul Powers t e s t i f i e d that she was i n pretty bad shape and incapable of intelligent speech when she went i n ; that she became more coherent a f t e r she got out of the intensive care unit, which he thought was a week and a half a f t e r she went in. Penny t e s t i f i e d that for two days a f t e r she went i n the hospital October 17, her mother hardly knew who she was, and the condition continued for three four days. Accepting t h i s testimony a t its face value, it stands uncontradicted and undisputed i n the record that it was from October 28 on u n t i l November 18 that Attorney Lee, as a r e s u l t of numerous conferences with her, and numerous changes and corrections i n the w i l l requested by her, finally completed the document on November 18. Lee testified: "* * So eventually by sort of a process of discussion and finding out what was feasible M r s . Powers and I arrived a t t h i s document which she was satisfied re- flected her l a s t w i l l , and she told m e she'd be i n about the 18th or 19th, the l a t t e r part of that week, and we'd have the ceremony * * *. I' There i s no testimony from any witness t o suggest or indi- cate that any of the Shelden children, including Thelma, knew that the new w i l l was contemplated, o r what the terms or provi- sions were, or ever discussed them with their mother, or exerted any influence of any kind or character whatsoever on their mother concerning the terms and provisions of the w i l l , or ever exerted influence on anyone else. Repeating, the undisputed facts are: That Budoin Powers entered the hospital on October 17, 1971 and was immediately taken to the intensive care unit. That Lee f i r s t talked with her on October 20, 19% making extensive handwritten and typewritten other notes, and on three or four/occasions before her release from the hospital on November 4. The f i r s t draft of the w i l l was completed on October 28, a t which time i t was anticipated that she would execute the w i l l on October 30, but when she improved physically there was no need for an immediate execution of the w i l l and it was postponed. She l e f t the intensive care unit on November 1, and was released and discharged from the hospital on November 4 . Contestant Paul Powers t e s t i f i e d unequivocally that she became coherent when she got out of the intensive care unit on November 1. Contestant Penny Bear t e s t i f i e d that three o r four days a f t e r her admission on October 17, she started t o recognize people, and could then talk. There i s absolutely no evidence of any kind of any lack of competence from that date on u n t i l her second heart attack. The testimony of Lee is uncontradicted and undisputed that the f i n a l d r a f t of the w i l l was completed on November 18 a s the result of numerous conferences with Budoin Powers between October 20 and November 18, and she was expected a t ~ e e ' s office t o execute the w i l l on November 18 or 19; there was no change before the execution on December 9. Indeed, it i s clear there was never any evidence of undue influence or fraud a t any time. ~ e e ' s notes handwritten on October 20 quote her reasons for not including the Powers boys, i.e., that property was coming to them under the Glacier County ranch t r u s t and they must prove they a r e men. Patrick Powers had already been eliminated from t h e 1969 w i l l . Mrs. Powers told Lee she w a s very fond of both Thelma (who did not p a r t i c i p a t e a s a beneficiary i n the Glacier County ranch involved i n the t r u s t created i n the w i l l of T.R. Powers), and of Penny Bear (who did p a r t i c i p a t e a s a beneficiary i n the Glacier County ranch t r u s t ) . Thelma came t o v i s i t her from t i m e t o time, and she v i s i t e d Thelma from time t o time. Whenever she needed Thelma, she came. She a l s o f e l t the same way about Penny, who helped take care of her. She wanted t o give Thelma t h e l i o n ' s share, and gave her more than she gave Penny, because Penny and the other four children of T. R. Powers were soon t o come i n t o t h a t t r u s t property which was scheduled t o terminate i n September 1973. Budoin Powers thought t h a t the Glacier County ranch would produce from $500,000 t o $900,000. She did not a n t i c i p a t e t h a t Penny Bear would leave Billings t o take p a r t i n the operation of the Glacier County ranch, but she wanted t o do something special f o r Penny, so she s e t up the t r u s t f o r Penny of $10,000 t o take care of odds and ends such a s medical expenses and the l i k e . I n the event of Penny's demise, the grandchildren were recognized, but Mrs. Powers did not want the money t o f a l l i n t o t h e hands of penny's husband, Anthony Bear Don't Walk. She was not c e r t a i n t h a t the marriage of Penny and Anthony would l a s t , and i f t h a t marriage terminated, then she wanted the money t o immediately vest i n and be available t o Penny. It i s a l s o of i n t e r e s t t h a t Budoin Powers had gone t o l i v e with Thelma i n January 1971 and apparently loaned Thelma $1,000 i n July of t h a t year, but there i s simply no evidence of any other g r a t u i t i e s t o any of the f i r s t s i x of her children born of her marriage t o Shelden. O n t h e other hand, she had already made a home f o r Paul Powers and h i s wife i n Hawaii while he was attending the University of Hawaii and had advanced t o Paul some $21,977.73 of t r u s t funds. Lee completed the f i n a l draft of the w i l l on November 18, 1971, solely as the r e s u l t of numerous conferences between Bedoin Powers and Lee while she was admittedly competent, to insure that the f i n a l product carried out her wishes and desires. There i s no evidence that any other person ever discussed the contents of the w i l l or the testamentary desires o r intentions of Bedoin Powers with either her o r with Lee. The w i l l as finally drafted on November 18 was duly executed by Bedoin Powers before Lee and K e m p Wilson on December 9. There i s not one shred of evidence of incompetence, undue influence, or fraud i n the finalizing of that w i l l on November 18, and Bedoin Powers had sensible reasons for the division of a l l property between a l l eleven children i n view of the provisions of the Glacier County ranch t r u s t for the five Powers children, and the 1971 w i l l concerning the Big Horn County ranch for the s i x Shelden children. From the time of the second heart attack on November 19 through the execution of the w i l l on December 9, these basic facts a r e not i n dispute: November 18, Bedoin Powers l e f t the t r a i l e r home where she stayed with her daughter Penny, and went t o a motel with her daughter Thelma and Thelma's children. She intended t o go t o ~ h e l m a ' s home i n Portland. She telephoned Lee from the motel. November 19 Penny came t o the motel and Bedoin Powers sustained her second heart attack i n the presence of Penny, Thelma and ~ h e l m a ' s children. She was immediately taken t o the intensive care unit where she had a tracheotomy and the tube was l e f t i n her throat. Thelma l e f t Billings with her children and returned t o her home i n Portland on November 31, and did not return to Billings u n t i l December 23, which i s the date her mother was released from the hospital. December 8, 1971, was the date a l l closing papers including the petition, checks for distribution, and other papers were executed by Bedoin Powers for termination of the Glacier County ranch t r u s t by which the five Powers children acquired a l l of the t r u s t property. Penny and Paul both executed the waivers of accounting, and Paul Powers accompanied Lee t o the h o s p i t a l and was present when she executed a l l of the papers and documents necessary f o r terminating the t r u s t . On December 9, Kemp Wilson accompanied Lee t o the hospital a t which time the w i l l , which had been drafted i n f i n a l form on November 18, was then executed. Bedoin Powers l e f t the intensive care u n i t December 14 and was discharged from t h e hospital on December 23, 1971. She died i n June 1972. The impartial testimony of D r . Byorth, attending physician, and f i v e nurses who took care of her throughout her s t a y i n the intensive care u n i t i s overwhelming evidence. Laurie Vogele was on duty from 3:00 p.m. t o 11:30 p,m. December 8; Josephine Keeland from 1 1 : O O p.m. on December 8 u n t i l 3:30 p.m. on December 9. I n addition, the testimony of nurses Pat Silva and Dora Padilla during t h e same general period of time confirmed the competency of Budoin Powers. With respect t o t e s t s concerning her a b i l i t y t o understand, the nurses would question her during the f i r s t few days she was there, chart the answers, and thereafter when she was aware of what was going on, there was no need t o do so. A s of December 9, there was no need t o ask her the questions any longer, because on t h a t date Bedoin Powers was aware of what was going on. Nurse Connie Dunn worked f i v e days a week throughout a l l t h e time Bedoin Powers was i n the intensive care u n i t and she t e s t i f i e d t h a t MrS. Powers was competent t o dispose of her property on December 9, 1971. This judgment was confirmed by nurses Keeland and Padilla. W e have given a l l of the foregoing d e t a i l s t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t there were no issues a s t o undue influence, fraud, lack of execution o r witnessing of the w i l l , and the special verdict should not have been submitted t o the jury. This alone would require reversal and a new t r i a l . However, there remains the f i r s t issue a s t o whether the motion f o r a directed verdict should have been granted. Contestants' position here i s that i f there was substantial, competent and credible evidence even though the evidence was conflicting, the verdict of the jury should be upheld. Previously we have shown that the verdict cannot be upheld, but our problem i s whether there was substantial, competent and credible evidence t o withstand the motion for directed verdict. Contestants c i t e Reynolds v. Trbovich, Inc., 123 Mont. 224, 210 P.2d 634 and Wyant v. Dunn, 140 Mont. 181, 368 P.2d 917, for the general principle that the jury is the trier of fact and unless the evidence on behalf of the [contestants] i s not inherently so improbable as to brand it palpably false, the evidence should be submitted t o the jury as the jury i s the sole judge of credibility of the witnesses. In analyzing the testimony submitted, the only possible issue that could have been submitted t o the jury was as to the competency of the testatrix.. Considering the evidence i n the best l i g h t possible for the contestants, the most that can be said i s that the t e s t a t r h had intermittent periods of incom- petence, but a t the time of execution of the w i l l she was wholly competent. The only evidence t o the contrary, i f it be substantial credible evidence, consisted of the testimony of son Paul Powers, daughter Penny Powers (Mrs. Anthony Bear Don't Walk), Allie Williams, an aunt of deceased, and Genevieve Haworth, a friend of many years. Mrs. Haworth t e s t i f i e d that when she talked t o Bedoin Powers a f t e r her release from the hospital she said she could not remember what went on during her hospital stay. Obviously such a statement does not establish a lack of competency a t a given t i m e . The aunt's testimony regarding a hospital v i s i t where she said Bedoin Powers did not recognize her on the day of the execution of the w i l l does not amount t o substantial evidence of incompetency. The son's and daughter's testimony remains. They are the most interested witnesses. Both would gain by rejection of the w i l l . Son Paul accompanied Attorney Lee to the hospital on December 8 where Bedoin Powers, as trustee of the Glacier County ranch trust, executed the necessary papers to terminate the trust. Paul received the benefits of the termination; and yet testified that his mother was not only incompetent to execute a last will the following day, but that she was incompetent to execute the trust papers for him on December 8. Such testimony as indicated in the transcript is not credible as a matter of law. Here, after receiving the benefits of his mother's acts, he would be collater- ally estopped from disputing her competency to do those acts. Section 49-113, R.C.M. 1947. Daughter Penny's testimony is of like import. She testified that she visited her mother briefly on the morning of December 9 at which time her mother gave no indication that she knew what was going on. That Bedoin Powers had lucid intervals, at the very least, at all times after the first week following her entry into the hospital on November 19, and that she was competent, aware, and understood everything that was taking place at the time of the execution of her will between 2:00 and 3:00 p . m . on the afternoon of December 9 is all testified to postively by disinterested witnesses. In determining that the testimony of the son and daughter was not substantial credible testimony sufficient to go to the jury or sufficient to withstand the motion for directed verdict on the issue of competency, we are aware of the rules recently discussed in both the majority and dissenting opinions in Hanlon V. Anderson, Mont . , 502 P.2d 51, 29 St.Rep. 825, and cases cited therein. Generally stated the rule is that this Court will sustain a determination of fact by a trial court based upon substantial conflicting evidence. Our holding here and our analysis of the evidence by way of testimony and documentary evidence re- veals that the testimony of Paul Powers, upon which the trial court's decision rested is, while conflicting, not substantial. He, who received benefits of h i s mother's execution of documents terminating the Glacier County ranch t r u s t in his favor, w i l l not then be heard to t e s t i f y that she was incompetent. Contestants c i t e In r e Estate of Hall v. Milkovich, 158 Mont. 438, 448, 492 P.2d 1388, for the proposition that the issue could and should not have been withdrawn from the jury. W e believe a close reading of In r e Estate of Hall w i l l reveal the contrary. F i r s t , we have heretofore shown that there was no evidence of undue influence. The only issue was competency. In In r e Estate of Hall the transcript was replete with evidence that should have been resolved by a jury. Here, lacking ~ a u l ' s unbelievable testimony not amounting t o "substantial" evidence, reasonable men could not reach different conclusions from the facts. In In r e Estate of Hall, a w i l l contest where the t r i a l court granted a motion for directed verdict for proponents dismissing contestants' petitions, an 81 year old testator with a long history of declining mental and physical health due t o a painful terminal cancer, had made four w i l l s within s i x months under circumstances clearly showing fact disputes. This Court stated: "Respondents rely heavily on language t h i s Court used i n In r e Estate of Cocanougher, 141 Mont. 16, 25, 375 P.2d 1009, when the Court quoted from I n r e Hegarty's Estate, 46 Nev. 321, 212 P. 1040: 11 1 I 8 Courts have neither the right nor power t o reframe the w i l l s of decedents, nor to overthrow the expressed intent therein contained, i n the ab- sence of direct and substantial proof sufficient t o bring the case within the well-established rules of law regarding undue influence. I' I "This Court i s mindful of the dignity that i.t has reposed i n a decedent's w i l l and reaffirms t h i s doctrine. But we must recognize that the Court had Cocanougher before i t on appeal twice a f t e r jury verdicts finding undue influence and properly found that the evidence revealed none. Therefore that doctrine has no application t o the issue before us i n the instant case. I I In I n r e Estate of Hall, the t r i a l court had ruled out a l l evidence of hospital records. In the instant case, a l l evidence of hospital records plus the doctor and nurses came i n , a l l attesting t o competency. The t e s t a t r i x here was sixty years of age, active, and admittedly i n good mental condition except a s the heart attacks might have affected it. Moreover, between heart attacks and hospitalizations and thereafter, t e s t a t r i x here was competent i n a l l ways. A number of other matters appear from the record here that we do not dwell upon. The contestants' assertions of unnaturalness 11 of the w i l l , the "Powers" money not going t o the Powers1' children, and other matters during the course of the t r i a l were allowed t o divert the t r i a l court from the single issue, that of competency, t o such a degree that evidence was permitted which was not sub- stzntTal and credible and often not relevant. Having examined the record, we find the judgment must be and i s reversed and the cause remanded with directions t o grant judgment t o the proponents of the w i l l of December 9, 1971, and that that w i l l be admitted t o probate. Jus t I ? f Chief ~ u s t i c e .