Title: IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SPEERS

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SPEERS  IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF SPEERS 2008 OK 16 179 P.3d 1265 Case Number: 103813 Decided: 02/26/2008 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA In the Matter of the Estate of SHIRLEY JOYCE SPEERS, DANNY SPEERS, LEE ANN FINCHER, and SHERRY ROSS, Appellants, v. ANN SPEERS, Appellee. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION II Honorable Richard E. Branam, Trial Judge ¶0 After Ralph Speers' death, his second wife, Ann Speers (appellee) discovered and sought to admit to probate the purported will of Shirley Joyce Speers (testatrix), Ralph Speers' deceased first wife. Danny Speers, LeeAnn Fincher, and Sherry Ross, the testatrix's children (collectively, contestants), filed an objection, arguing that the instrument was not executed with the proper statutory formalities. The trial court found that the will was not self-proving because of its lack of a notary seal, but that because the statutory formalities had been observed, the will was valid and should be admitted to probate. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, and the contestants appealed. We find that because no competent evidence was presented that: 1) there were two subscribing witnesses; 2) the testatrix published her will to two subscribing witnesses; 3) two subscribing witnesses signed the instrument in the presence of the testatrix; and 4) the testatrix signed the instrument in the presence of two subscribing witnesses or acknowledged that the signature on the instrument was hers, the trial court erred in admitting the instrument to probate. We reverse and remand with instructions that the will not be admitted to probate. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF APPEALS OPINION VACATED; DISTRICT COURT ORDER REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. David Youngblood, Atoka, Oklahoma, for Appellants. Mark Morrison, Durant, Oklahoma, for Appellee. KAUGER, J.: ¶1 The issue presented is whether the trial court erred in admitting the contested will to probate. We find that it did. FACTS ¶2 On June 15, 1982, Shirley Joyce Speers (testatrix) signed a "Last Will and Testament" (will/instrument). It named her husband, Ralph Speers (husband) as her executor and Doyle Wesley Fincher as her alternate executor. It also gave her daughter, Sherry Arlene Ross, her household furnishings and appliances, and her son, Daniel Eugene Speers, her livestock. Her husband was named the beneficiary of the rest of the estate, provided he paid the estate's expenses. If he failed to do so, his share was devised in equal parts to James Nelson Fincher and Jonathan Clyde Fincher, the testatrix's grandsons. The will expressly omitted LeeAnn Fincher, the testatrix's daughter. It was signed by Sadie B. Walton (Walton) and Walter Durbin (Durbin) as witnesses and notarized by Vicky Thomas (notary), but it was not stamped with a notary seal. The testatrix died on April 20, 1997, and the instrument was not probated at the time of her death. ¶3 At some point after his wife's death, the husband married Ann Speers (appellee). The husband died some time before June of 2005, and upon searching his records, his second wife discovered the will. She filed her petition on June 2, 2005, seeking to admit it to probate. The instrument submitted by the appellee contained several handwritten strikeouts and interlineations. ¶4 On August 18, 2005, the trial court held a hearing on the matter and Durbin was called as a witness. Durbin testified that he remembered: 1) signing the instrument; 2) seeing the testatrix sign the instrument; and 3) that there were no strikeouts or interlineations on the document he signed. Q. All right. Do you remember where you may have been, wherever it was, when you signed the document? A. I presume at the Church of Christ at Caney. She probably come to the church and asked me to sign it, I suppose, now, but I don't know that, positive. Q. Okay, that's what we want to know, if you have a positive recollection of that. That's where you think you may been; is that right? A. Could have been, yes. Q. But as you sit here today - and correct me if I'm wrong - but as you sit here today you don't specifically remember this event, do you? A. No. . . . Walton was not produced to testify. ¶5 On August 18, 2005, the trial judge entered a court minute admitting the will to probate and appointing Doyle Wesley Fincher the executor. On September 12, 2006, the trial court filed a journal entry of judgment finding: 1) the will was a photocopy of an original with original signatures attached; ¶6 On September 29, 2006, the contestants filed their petition in error. On February 22, 2007, the cause was assigned to the Court of Civil Appeals. On September 21, 2007, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court. On October 9, 2007, the contestants filed their petition for certiorari, and we granted certiorari on January 22, 2008. ¶7 BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE INSTRUMENT WAS EXECUTED WITH THE PROPER STATUTORY FORMALITIES, THE INSTRUMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO PROBATE. ¶8 Probate proceedings are equitable in nature. ¶9 When a will is offered for probate, the singular concern of the court is the factum of the will, which consists of three elements: 1) whether the will has been executed with the requisite statutory formalities; 2) whether the maker was competent to make a will at the time; and 3) whether the will was the product of undue influence, fraud or duress. ¶10 The elements of a valid will and the method for making a self-proved will are found at ¶11 Here, the contestants do not allege that the testatrix was incompetent to make a will, nor do they allege that the will was a product of undue influence, fraud, or duress. The contestants' allegation is that the proponent did not make an adequate showing that the instrument was executed with the following statutory formalities: 1) there were two attesting witnesses; 2) the instrument was signed by the testatrix in the presence of both attesting witnesses or that the testatrix acknowledged to both witnesses that the signature on the instrument was hers; 3) the testatrix declared to both the attesting witnesses that the instrument was her will; and 4) that both attesting witnesses subscribed the instrument at the testatrix's request and in her presence. A. The Trial Court Erred in Finding That There Were Two Subscribing Witnesses. ¶12 The burden of proof rests upon the proponent of the will to establish by preponderance of evidence that the will was executed and published according to law. If the will is contested, all the subscribing witnesses who are present in the county, and who are of sound mind, must be produced and examined; and the death, absence or insanity of any of them must be satisfactorily shown to the court. If none of the subscribing witnesses reside in the county, and are not present at the time appointed for proving the will, or although such witnesses reside in the county and are insane or incompetent, and such facts are first made to appear to the court, either in contested or noncontested will cases, the court may admit the testimony of other witnesses to prove the sanity of the testator and the execution of the will and, as evidence of the execution, it may admit proof of the handwriting of the testator and of the subscribing witnesses, or any of them . . . .[Emphasis added.] These statutory provisions clearly reflect an intent that, in the event of a will contest, the testimony of the subscribing witnesses is essential to prove the proper execution of the will. ¶13 While Durbin was called to testify in the matter, evidence concerning Walton is de minimus. The instrument contains the signature of a Sadie B. Walton in three places: 1) in the attestation clause; 2) at the end of the instrument; and 3) in the notary's section. The only evidence regarding Walton's absence was the following exchange between the appellee's counsel and Durbin: Q: Are you familiar with Ms. Walton? A: No, I can't recall her, but I'm sure I knew her. Q: All right. Do you understand that she's now deceased? A: I was told that. There is otherwise no evidence in the record that Walton was dead or unavailable at the time of the will contest. Section 43 mandates that all of the subscribing witnesses be present or that their absence or death must be "satisfactorily shown." ¶14 The statute does not define the term "satisfactorily," but this Court has recognized that the word "satisfy" means to be free from doubt, suspense, or uncertainty, to set the mind at rest, and satisfactory evidence, sometimes called "sufficient evidence," is an amount of proof which will ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶15 Durbin also testified that he was not sure whether Walton was present when he signed the will. B. The Trial Court Erred in Finding Substantial Compliance with the Statutory Requirements of Publication by the Testatrix and the Presence of the Testatrix and the Subscribing Witnesses at the Signature of the Other. ¶16 Title ¶17 The evidence of the testatrix's publication to Durbin offered by the appellee is the attestation clause and the following testimony by Durbin: Q. . . . How did it happen that you became a witness to Ms. Speers' will, if this, in fact, is her will? A. Well, she came to me and wanted me to witness a will. And I told her I would, and I did. . . . Durbin also testifies that he saw the testatrix sign the instrument and that she was present when he signed the instrument. ¶18 This Court has held that where the attestation clause recites due execution of a will, it creates a prima facie case of due execution of the instrument, which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence. ¶19 Here, there was no evidence offered by the appellee establishing the attestation clause either by handwriting analysis, or any other form of proof. This is not sufficient to create a prima facie showing of due execution of the instrument, and therefore the instrument should not have been admitted to probate. The error concerning Walton's unavailability coupled with the lack of evidence regarding its execution results in an instrument which should not have been admitted to probate. CONCLUSION ¶20 The formalities to be observed in the execution of wills are simple and calculated to prevent fraud and uncertainty in the testamentary dispositions of property. Where the Legislature has seen fit to impose certain requirements for the execution of a will, compliance with such requirements is necessary to the validity of any instrument offered as a will. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF APPEALS OPINION VACATED; DISTRICT COURT ORDER REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. EDMONDSON, V.C.J., OPALA, KAUGER, WATT, and COLBERT, J.J., concur. HARGRAVE, J., concurs in result. WINCHESTER, C.J., TAYLOR, and REIF, J., (by separate writing) dissent. FOOT