Title: PATTEN v PATTEN

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13280 I N THE S U P K E M E COUKT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 19 7 6 D O N A L D W. PATTEN, Proponent and Appellant, ROBERT L. FATTEN, Contestant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. D. McPhillips , Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Church, Harris, Johnson & Williams, Great F a l l s , Montana Cresap S. McCracken argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondent: Alexander, Kuenning, Miller and Ugrin, Great F a l l s Montana Neil E. Ugrin argued, Great F a l l s , Montana - - Submitted: June 2, 1976 Decided : &C 3 0 19% Filed: &'J i (1 , >d/$ Hon. Edward T. Dussault, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n place of M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison, delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment entered by t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Pondera County, denying admission t o probate of a typewritten document purporting t o be t h e L a s t W i l l and Testament of E l l a D. Patten, deceased, and denying t h a t a handwritten instrument w a s a c o d i c i l republishing t h e W i l l . E l l a D. Patten, a widow, and a long-time r e s i d e n t of Pondera County, and mother of Donald W. Patten, proponent and appellant, and Robert D. Patten, c o n t e s t a n t and respondent herein, went t o her d o c t o r ' s o f f i c e i n Conrad on J u l y 6, 1970, i n keeping an appointment with her physician, D r . Fletcher. O n t h a t occasion she brought with her a two-page typewritten document, and a f t e r being attended by her doctor, a request w a s transmitted t o t h e o f f i c e s t a f f t o witness her W i l l . The typewritten document consisted of two pages dated J u l y 6, 1970, with t h e signature of decedent a t t h e bottom of t h e f i r s t page and t h e a t t e s t a t i o n c l a u s e , i n t h e usual form, w a s a t t h e top of t h e second page and contained t h e signatures of Norma Sangray, A l i c e G. Morley, and Grace E. Elings, a l l members of t h e o f f i c e s t a f f of decedent's doctor i n Conrad, Montana. Also on t h e f i r s t page, i n t h e second typewritten paragraph pertaining t o "my executor h e r e i n a f t e r named," t h e r e appears no typewritten name of any person, but i n s t e a d , t h e name of "Donald W. Patten" i n pen and ink and on t h e margin a signature, E l l a D. Patten, and a t t h e very bottom of t h e f i r s t page a signature, E l l a D. Patten. The other instrument consisted of a piece of paper on which appeared, all in handwriting, this statement: "I request that (name inserted is omitted) be not employed to - probate my estate. Ella D. Patten, Feb. 14th, 1973." Ella D. Patten died September 14, 1973, and the purported Will and handwritten instrument were found in decedent's safety deposit box in a Great Falls bank by Donald W. Patten, proponent, who later filed the purported Will and Codicil for probate. Robert D. Patten contested the probate and subsequently the matter was heard before the District Court in Conrad, Pondera County, Montana, with a jury. The trial commenced on March 18, 1975. After the jury of twelve was selected and the opening statement of counsel for the proponent was made, the purported Will of decedent was marked as Proponent's Exhibit 1, and the hand- written instrument was marked Exhibit 2. Much of the testimony at trial centered around the circumstances of the execution of the Will--whether Ella D. Patten actually did subscribe or sign her name in the presence of the witnesses, or whether she acknowledged that the document had been signed by her prior to the signing by the witnesses, and whether she declared it to be her Will. The handwritten instrument was not testified to at great length by the witnesses from the medical staff; whether it is a codicil republishing the Will or a simple request not to employ a certain attorney. The first witness called for the proponent was Mrs. Norma Sangray, the Medical Assistant for Dr. Fletcher, who had been employed as such for about two years prior to July 6, 1970, and whose signature as a witness appeared first following the formal attestation clause. Upon being shown the second sheet or page of the proported Will, the witness recognized her signature and that of the other two witnesses but was unable to state that all three signed in the presence -2- of t h e decedent and i n t h e presence of each o t h e r , o r t h a t she r e a l l y knew it w a s t h e decedent's W i l l , because i f it had been, "it would have been a very ceremonial t h i n g and would have stuck i n m y mind." The second witness t o be c a l l e d by t h e proponent w a s M r s . Alice C. Morley, who had worked f o r D r . F l e t c h e r s i n c e March 1970, a period of about four months, and her testimony was less e f f e c t i v e than t h a t of t h e o t h e r two witnesses. She likewise t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d not know t h e decedent; d i d not see t h e s i g n a t u r e of t h e decedent or any p a r t of t h e W i l l except t h e second page when a l l t h r e e witnesses signed. The t h i r d witness t o be c a l l e d by proponent w a s M r s . Grace E. Elings, who i s a nurse i n D r . F l e t c h e r ' s o f f i c e and had been f o r about f i v e years p r i o r t o J u l y 6 , 1970, and w a s t h e r e on t h a t d a t e and i d e n t i f i e d her s i g n a t u r e a s t h e last one on page 2 of t h e document. She t e s t i f i e d she had known t h e decedent nearly a l l her l i f e and knew she had done l e g a l work, and t h e manner of her f o l d i n g t h e f i r s t page under t h e second was t y p i c a l of t h e privacy she desired regarding her personal a f f a i r s . M r s . Elings f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d she d i d not s e e t h e f i r s t page of t h e purported W i l l , she d i d not read t h e a t t e s t a t i o n c l a u s e , t h a t t h e witnesses d i d not s i g n i n t h e presence of each o t h e r , and t h a t M r s . P a t t e n stood a l l t h e t i m e t h i s w a s going on and had s t a t e d t o her "Everything is i n order. I' Donald W. P a t t e n , t h e proponent, was t h e last witness t o be c a l l e d and t e s t i f i e d i n h i s own behalf a s t o h i s f i n d i n g t h e proported W i l l and t h e proported Codicil i n h i s mother's s a f e t y d e p o s i t box i n a Great F a l l s bank, a l l among approximately 20 t o 25 o t h e r papers and documents t h e r e i n . He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e handwritten document was not attached t o t h e W i l l . -3- Thereafter, proponent moved t h e admission of Exhibits 1 and 2 i n t o evidence, and t h a t t h e W i l l of E l l a D. P a t t e n dated J u l y 6 , 1970, and t h e Codicil t h e r e t o dated February 15, 1973, be received f o r probate. This w a s r e s i s t e d by counsel f o r c o n t e s t a n t , and, a f t e r hearing arguments, t h e t r i a l Court then a d m i t t e d E x h i b i t s 1 and 2 f o r t h e purposes of t h e hearing and reserved its r u l i n g with r e s p e c t t o admission of t h e two e x h i b i t s t o probate. The c o n t e s t a n t then c a l l e d Donald W. P a t t e n , t h e proponent, a s an adverse witness and e l i c i t e d f u r t h e r information from him. Following t h e c l o s e of t h e testimony t h e c o n t e s t a n t moved f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on t h e grounds t h a t : (1) Exhibit 2 on i t s face was not a c o d i c i l ; ( 2 ) t h a t Exhibit 2 is n o t a testamentary document and makes no testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n i f t h e r e i s t o be any republication; (3) t h a t Exhibit 2 was n o t physically annexed t o nor endorsed on t h e W i l l , Exhibit 1, nor d i d it r e f e r i n any manner t o ~ x h i b i t 1 1 ( 4 ) t h a t Exhibit 1, t h e proported W i l l , was not executed i n t h e manner provided by l a w . The t r i a l Court denied t h e motion i n reference t o Exhibit 2 , s t a t i n g it was probably a question of l a w and not of f a c t , but t h e question would be submitted t o t h e jury as a fact-finding body, and t h a t Exhibit 1 would be submitted a l s o t o t h e jury a s t o t h e f a c t s surrounding its execution, under proper i n s t r u c t i o n s and i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s t o be included i n a s p e c i a l v e r d i c t . Contestant objected t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s Nos. 3 , 8 , and 9 on t h e grounds t h e r e was no testimony supporting i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s No. 3 , and t h a t i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s Nos. 8 and 9 would tend t o i n v i t e speculation by t h e jury on questiorsof l a w alone. The Court gave proponent's i n s t r u c t i o n No. 4 a s .-4 - modified at contestant's request, as shown by the underlining thereof; which instruction reads as follows: "With a few exceptions not involved in this case, a person making a Will may dispose of his or her property in any way he or she sees fit, provided the requirements of the law are followed." During its deliberations, the jury sent to the Court a note: "In reference to Instruction No. 4, what are the requirements of the law pertaining to a Will?" The Court returned a note to the jury reading: "To the Jury: It is not necessary that you have the require- ments of the law to make a valid Will. If you answer the questions contained in the special verdict, the Court will determine whether or not the Will is valid as a matter of law." The special verdict contained the interrogatories as submitted and the answers, as follows: "1. Did Ella D. Patten sign or subscribe her name at the bottom of the first page of the document Exhibit #1 in the presence of any two of the witnesses: Norma Sangray, Alice E. Morley, Grace E. Elings? ANSWER: No. "2. If your answer to question numbered 1 is ' no', did any two of the witnesses, Norma Sangray, Alice E. Morley, Grace E. Elings, actually see the name of Ella D. Patten now appearing at the bottom of the first sheet of the document? ANSWER: No. "3. Did any two of the three witnesses have an opportunity to see the signature now appearing at the bottom on sheet one of the document? ANSWER: Yes. "4. Did Ella D, Patten at the time any two of the witnesses, Norma Sangray, Alice E. Morley, Grace E. Elings, signed their names on the second sheet acknowledge to such witnesses that the document had been signed by her? ANSWER: No. "5. Did E l l a D, Patten d e c l a r e o r by her a c t s o r conduct communicate t o two witnesses before t h e i r respective signatures were placed on Exhibit #1, sheet two, t h a t t h e document was her w i l l ? ANSWER: Yes. "6. Did t h e witnesses, Norma Sangray, Alice E. Morley, and Grace E. Elings, each subscribe t h e i r respective names t o sheet two of t h e document i n t h e immediate presence of t h e other two witnesses. ANSWER: No. "7. Did a t l e a s t two witnesses sign t h e i r names t o Exhibit #1 a t t h e request of E l l a D. Patten and i n her presence? A N S W E R : Y e s . "8. Did E l l a D. Patten by placing Exhibit # 2 i n her s a f e t y deposit box with Exhibit #1 intend thereby t o modify, r e f e r t o , o r add t o Exhibit # l ? A N S W E R : Y e s . " 9 . Did E l l a D. Patten intend t o nominate Donald W, Patten as executor of her e s t a t e by writing i n h i s name a t paragraph 'SECOND' of e x h i b i t l ? A N S W E R : Y e s , " After r e c e i p t of t h e s p e c i a l v e r d i c t , t h e c o u r t entered a judgment denying probate t o t h e W i l l and ruled t h e c o d i c i l o u t as a testamentary document. This appeal followed. Appellant urges t h r e e basic propositions upon t h e Court i n support of h i s appeal. F i r s t : The Court erred i n refusing t h e jury i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e law they needed t o know i n making t h e i r decision on t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , t h e t e x t of which necessarily interweaves some law and f a c t . Appellant has reference t o h i s proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s No. 2 t h r u 7 . The refused i n s t r u c t i o n s read a s follows when o r i g i n a l l y proposed with amendments suggested during t h e course of settlement of instructions: Proponent's proposed instruction 2: It is the policy of the law to sustain Wills, if possible to do so, and every reasonable presumption will be indulged in favor of due execution of a Will. Proponent's proposed instruction 3: The purpose of a statute and prescribing formalities for the execution of Wills is to guard against and prevent mistake, imposition, undue influence, fraud, or deception, and to afford means of determining authenticity. Therefore, a substantial, rather than literal compliance with each of the various statuatory formalities is sufficient. Proponent's proposed instruction 4: Our law does not require that the witness to a Will see (or remember having seen) the maker's signature if the maker in any manner consistent with these instructions acknowledges the document to be his Will. Proponent's proposed instruction 5: When one acknowledges a Will to be his, he necessarily acknowledges that his signature is thereon. Proponent's proposed instruction 6: Acknowledgement of the subscription of a Will may be established by circumstantial evidence equally as well as spoken words. Proof of words, gestures or conduct is sufficient. Proponent's proposed instruction 7: Acknowledgement of a Will by its maker can be made in any manner that conveys to the mind of a witness of reasonable intelligence the maker's instruction to acknowledge its execution. Acknowledgement of a Will necessarily acknowledges the maker's signature thereon. Appellant cites as his authority In Re Bragg's - Estate, 106 Mont. 132, 7 6 P.2d 57, (1938). The decision in the Bragg Case is not controlling. The big difference in Bragg was that the witness OIConnell read the first page and to the "best memory" of the witness, as distinct from his peculiar ideas about swearing, saw the signature thereon and therefor his testimony alone was s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e W i l l under t h e cases c i t e d by t h e majority of t h e Court. Section 91-903, R.C.M. 1947, s p e c i f i c a l l y provides: "The jury, a f t e r hearing t h e case, must r e t u r n a s p e c i a l v e r d i c t upon t h e i s s u e s submitted t o them by t h e Court, upon which t h e judgment of t h e Court must be rendered e i t h e r admitting t h e W i l l t o probate o r r e j e c t i n g i t . " A l l of t h e refused i n s t r u c t i o n s , 2 through 7 , a r e merely a b s t r a c t statements of law. The jury here was not i n a p o s i t i o n t o r e t u r n a general v e r d i c t on t h e l e g a l s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e execution of t h e two page document proposed f o r probate. Further, t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s w e r e d e f e c t i v e i n some r e s p e c t s . Section 91-107, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , r e f e r s t o a formal w i l l and is i n four r e a d i l y understood p a r t s : "1. It must be subscribed a t t h e end thereof by t h e t e s t a t o r himself, o r some person i n h i s presence and by h i s d i r e c t i o n must subscribe h i s name t h e r e t o ; "2. The s u b s c r i p t i o n must be made i n t h e presence of t h e a t t e s t i n g witnesses, o r be acknowledged by t h e t e s t a t o r t o them t o have been made by him o r by h i s a u t h o r i t y ; "3. The t e s t a t o r must, a t t h e t i m e of subscribing o r acknowledging t h e same, d e c l a r e t o t h e a t t e s t i n g witnesses t h a t t h e instrument is h i s w i l l ; and "4. There must be two a t t e s t i n g witnesses, each of whom must s i g n h i s name as a witness, a t t h e end of t h e W i l l , a t t h e t e s t a t o r s request, and i n h i s presence." The requirement of p a r t 1 as quoted above was n o t s a t i s f i e d i n t h i s case. There is no proof whatsoever t h a t t h e r e was any s i g n a t u r e subscribed and t h e hasty assurance t h a t everything concealed "was i n order" does n o t help. I t i s t r u e t h a t t h e jury d i d f i n d t h a t t h e witnesses d i d have an opportunity t o see t h e s i g n a t u r e but t h a t i s not #supported by any evidence. A s M r s . Elings demonstrated t h e f o l d i n g of t h e f i r s t s h e e t under t h e second s h e e t made t h a t p h y s i c a l l y impossible without i n s u l t i n g M r s . Patten a f t e r she had c a r e f u l l y prepared t h e document t o conceal t h e f i r s t page before any witness was c a l l e d i n . Also, M r s . P a t t e n d i d not acknowledge t o any of t h e witnesses t h a t t h e proposed W i l l had been signed by her. The requirement of P a r t 2 of Section 91-107, quoted above, w a s likewise not s a t i s f i e d i n t h i s case. The a t t e s t a t i o n c l a u s e of M r s . Patten on Page 2, w a s not read by any of t h e witnesses. The second b a s i s urged by a p p e l l a n t is: t h e judgment of t h e c o u r t is not supported by t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s ; what t h e c o u r t d i d was tantamount t o ignoring t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and t h e jury responses. W e b e l i e v e w e have covered t h i s proposition by our discussion i n connection with t h e f i r s t b a s i s of proponents appeal. The t h i r d b a s i s of a p p e l l a n t ' s appeal is: The c o u r t e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o a p p r e c i a t e t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e holographic c o d i c i l which mooted a l l t h e questions presented about execution of t h e basic W i l l . The n o t e which a p p e l l a n t r e f e r s t o a s a c o d i c i l is c l e a r l y not a testamentary document. It does not r e f e r t o any W i l l , it w a s not attached t o o r made a p a r t of t h e purported W i l l of M r s . Patten. C l e a r l y , t h e note of M r s . Patten d i d not r e p u b l i s h her W i l l . I n t h e Matter of t h e E s t a t e of Gudmunsen, Mont . , 545 P.2d 146, 33 St. Rep. 57. The w r i t i n g of t h e name of Donald W. Patten on t h e f i r s t page of t h e W i l l is presumed t o have been made a f t e r execution. The i n t e r l i n e a t i o n bears no d a t e . The i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s No. 8 and 9 w e r e submitted over t h e s t r o n g o b j e c t i o n s of c o n t e s t a n t . The i n t e n t i o n s of M r s . Patten were not questions f o r t h e jury. These are matters of l a w f o r t h e Court t o decide. The c r o s s appeal and c r o s s assignments of e r r o r by t h e respondent c l e a r l y set t h i s out. After c a r e f u l l y reviewing a l l t h e a u t h o r i t i e s and s t a t u t e s c i t e d by a p p e l l a n t and respondent we a f f i r m t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court denying probate. Judge, s i t t i n g i n place of M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison. v i c e s