Title: ESTATE OF CRADDOCK

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 12789 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE OF MONTANA 1974 I N T H E M A T T E R O F T H E ESTATE OF : O S C A R W . CRADDOCK , Deceased. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable John B . McClernan, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Edward D. Yelsa argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent : Burgess, Joyce, Prothero, Whelan and O ' ~ e a r y , Butte, Montana Robert T. O'Leary argued, and Thomas Joyce appeared, Butte, Montana Submitted: November 22, 1974 Decided: J A N ~ ~ ? ' J , c J -- Filed : \ E ~ ) Y 1 0 'g/$ PER CURIAM: The proponent of t h e w i l l of Oscar W. Craddock appeals t h e r e f u s a l of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of S i l v e r Bow County t o admit t h a t w i l l t o probate; i t s d e n i a l of h i s motion f o r a new t r i a l ; and i t s d e n i a l of h i s motion t o amend t h e judgment. Considera- t i o n of t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d is hampered by t h e s t a t e of t h e record i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Accordingly, our discussion w i l l primar- i l y involve t h e procedures followed i n t h e d i s t r i c t court. Oscar W. Craddock died on November 11, 1969, survived by a brother and f i v e sisters. A purported holographic w i l l was discovered among h i s papers i n February 1972. H i s brother, Ralph H. Craddock, offered t h e w i l l f o r probate i n September of t h a t year, but objections were f i l e d by P e a r l Trevenna, decedent's sister. Those objections alleged t h e holographic w i l l had been mutilated and m a t e r i a l l y a l t e r e d by someone other than Oscar W. Craddock. The Register of Actions contained i n t h e S i l v e r Bow County d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e contains t h i s notation: "Apr. 26, 1974 I n t h i s matter t h e alleged W i l l i s denied admission t o probate; t h e w i l l c o n t e s t i s ordered dismissed, and General L e t t e r s of Ad- m i n i s t r a t i o n a r e ordered issued t o Ralph H. Craddock upon, h i s taking oath and f i l i n g bond i n t h e sum of $10,000.00 and an order be entered accordingly." Following t h a t a c t i o n by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , proponent moved f o r a new t r i a l o r f o r amendment of t h e judgment. H e alleged t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o s u s t a i n t h e judg- ment; t h a t he had been deprived of formal t r i a l on t h e i s s u e s ; and, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had f a i l e d t o e n t e r w r i t t e n findings of f a c t and conclusions of law. The motion was denied. Three i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d on proponent's appeal from t h e judgment and d e n i a l of h i s motion. They a r e : (1) Did t h e d i s t r i c t court err i n denying t h e p e t i t i o n for admission of t h e w i l l t o probate? ( 2 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n f a i l i n g t o e n t e r w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law? (3) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n i t s r u l i n g s on pro- ponent's r e q u e s t s f o r admissions? Given t h e s t a t e of t h e record before us, we a r e unable t o determine e i t h e r of proponent's f i r s t two i s s u e s . While t h e law c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e s t h e procedures t o be followed i n t h e probate of a w i l l , t h e record f a i l s t o d i s c l o s e whether o r not t h e r e was compliance with those requirements. I n i n t e r p r e t i n g Montana's probate laws, t h e Court has held t h e proponent of a w i l l must make a prima f a c i e showing t h a t t h e proposed w i l l was executed i n conformity with s t a t u t o r y require- ments. I n r e S i l v e r ' s E s t a t e , 98 Mont. 1 4 1 , 38 P.2d 277; I n r e Bragg's E s t a t e , 1 0 6 Mont. 132, 76 P.2d 57. Here, t h e require- ment t h a t t h e holographic w i l l be e n t i r e l y i n t h e t e s t a t o r ' s handwriting is t h e determinative f a c t u a l i s s u e . Section 91-108, R.C.M. 1947.. Montana's procedural r u l e s concerning probate of a w i l l have, p r i o r t o t h e enactment of t h e Uniform Probate Code which has n o t y e t gone i n t o e f f e c t , remained s u b s t a n t i a l l y unchanged s i n c e t h e nineteenth century. Section 91-901, R.C.M. 1947, provides t h a t i s s u e s of f a c t a f f e c t i n g t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e w i l l a r e t o be t r i e d , e i t h e r before t h e c o u r t o r a jury. This provision a p p l i e s only t o contested probates, but even uncontested w i l l s r e q u i r e t h e taking of testimony and proof of t h e w i l l . Section 91-809, R.C.M. 1947. Our procedure was s u c c i n c t l y s e t f o r t h i n I n r e S i l v e r ' s E s t a t e , 98 Mont. 1 4 1 , 151, 38 P.2d 277, where it i s s t a t e d : "Thus, on a c o n t e s t before probate, t h e pro- ponent of t h e w i l l must f i r s t show t h a t t h e w i l l would be e n t i t l e d t o probate except f o r t h e c o n t e s t , whereupon t h e p a r t i e s proceed with t h e t r i a l * * *." (Emphasis supplied) Our concern here i s whether t h e proponent had opportun- i t y t o present evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g h i s prima f a c i e case of v a l i d i t y . An a f f i d a v i t f i l e d by proponent's counsel, and in- cluded i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e , a s s e r t s : "That proponent was ready and is now ready t o prove t h a t t h e proposed w i l l i s e n t i r e l y i n t h e handwriting of t h e decedent. That t h e a f f i a n t has not presented t h e case of t h e pro- ponent i n court a s of t h e d a t e of t h i s a f f i - d a v i t . That t h e r u l i n g of t h e t r i a l court a s [ s i c ] precluded t h e presentation of t h e case of proponent on i t s merits * * *." This a f f i d a v i t was f i l e d a week a f t e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t denied admission of t h e w i l l t o probate and dismissed t h e c o n t e s t . Our determination is complicated by t h e a s s e r t i o n s of counsel i n t h e i r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f s . Proponent's counsel, con- s i s t e n t with h i s a f f i d a v i t , claims t h a t no hearing was had on April 26, 1974. Contestant's counsel f l a t l y s t a t e s t h a t "hearing w a s held by t h e Court on April 26, 1974". The d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e contains no i n d i c a t i o n one way o r t h e o t h e r . Generally, t h i s Court w i l l indulge a l l reasonable pre- sumptions i n favor of t h e r e g u l a r i t y of t h e proceedings below. Feely v. Lacey, 133 Mont. 283, 322 P.2d 1 1 0 4 ; Kunesh v. City of Great F a l l s , 132 Mont. 285, 317 P.2d 297. Our inquiry then be- comes whether it i s reasonable t o presume, on t h i s record, t h a t t h e evidentiary hearing required by law took place. A hearing d i d take place before Judge Freebourn i n 1972, but he was d i s q u a l i f i e d i n t h e following year. N o t r a n s c r i p t of t h e hearing was prepared, so no testimonial evidence i n t r o - duced t h e r e was a v a i l a b l e t o t h e s u b s t i t u t e d judge, Judge McClernan. Furthermore, since Judge Freebourn made no r u l i n g on t h e m e r i t s , proponent was e n t i t l e d t o a hearing before Judge McClernan. The record here contains no minute e n t r y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t such a hearing took place. It contains no notice o r s e t t i n g of d hearing f o r A p r i l 26, 1974. I t c o n t a i n s only t h e a f f i d a v i t of p r o p o n e n t ' s counsel, swearing t h a t "a hearing was n o t h e l d on t h e merits of t h e c a s e " . The importance of t h i s hearing t o probate procedure i n Ylontana p r e v e n t s us from indulging t h e presumption of t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of t h e proceedings below when t h e r e c o r d b e a r s no s u b s t a n t i a l evidence of t h e hearing. However, our holding h e r e i s l i m i t e d t o t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e . This is n o t a c a s e where proponent has i n d i c a t e d t h a t he has no evidence o t h e r than t h e w i l l i t s e l f . Nor is it one where t h e proponent has i n d i c a t e d no d e s i r e f o r a hearing. Three months p r i o r t o t h e appealed o r d e r , proponent f i l e d a n o t i c e t h a t he was prepared f o r t r i a l . Accordingly, we remand t h i s c a s e t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a h e a r i n g a t which proponent is t o make h i s prima f a c i e showing of t h e proper e x e c u t i o n of t h e w i l l . By s o holding, w e make no d i s p o s i t i o n a s t o t h e merits of t h e i s s u e . The a l t e r a - t i o n s appearing on t h e f a c e of t h i s holographic w i l l , i f unexplain- ed, could i n v a l i d a t e t h e w i l l . The d e t e r m i n a t i o n rests w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t upon proper hearing. The s t a t e of t h e r e c o r d a l s o p r e v e n t s our r u l i n g on t h e i s s u e of whether o r n o t f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law should have been e n t e r e d . Findings of f a c t and conclusions of law need n o t be e n t e r e d under a l l circumstances. The e x c e p t i o n s a r e expressed w i t h i n t h e r u l e i t s e l f and w i l l n o t be considered h e r e , s i n c e w e a r e unable t o determine how t h e c o u r t ' s r u l i n g was reached. F i n a l l y , w e c o n s i d e r proponent's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o s t r i k e c o n t e s t a n t ' s answer t o a r e q u e s t f o r admission o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t o deem it admitted. Proponent r e q u e s t e d t h a t c o n t e s t a n t admit o r deny t h a t c o n t e s t a n t knew of no w i t n e s s e s who would t e s t i f y t h a t one o t h e r t h a n t h e t e s t a t o r rnade the a l t e r a t i o n s i n t h e w i l l . Contestant responded by a s s e r t i n g t h a t proponent had t h e burden of proving t h e w i l l was e n t i r e l y i n t h e t e s t a t o r ' s handwriting. Requests f o r admissions a r e governed by Rule 3 6 , M.R. Civ.P. They w i l l be deemed admitted u n l e s s denied, o b j e c t e d t o , o r a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o admission o r d e n i a l . A s set f o r t h i n t h e r u l e , grounds f o r o b j e c t i o n a r e p r i v i l e g e , i r r e l e v a n c y , o r impropriety. The c o u r t ' s o r d e r i n d i c a e s t h a t while p r o p o n e n t ' s motion might have been w e l l founded, t h e r e q u e s t f o r admission would be answered a t p r e t r i a l conference scheduled s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , and t h e p r e s e n t motion was denied. The m a t t e r was then l o s t d u r i n g t h e a t t e n u a t e d maneuvering o f proponent, i n c l u d i n g h i s d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of t h e f i r s t judge only days a f t e r t h e p r e t r i a l conference and b e f o r e a p r e t r i a l o r d e r could be i s s u e d . Although t h e r e was a l s o a p r e t r i a l conference b e f o r e Judge McClernan, proponent d i d n o t propose i n c l u s i o n of t h i s m a t t e r i n . h i s proposed p r e t r i a l o r d e r . Under t h e circumstances h e r e , w e a r e n o t prepared t o f i n d e r r o r i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e motion. The c a s e i s accordingly remanded f o r f u r t h e r proceedings n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s opinion.