Title: ESTATE OF GUDMUNSEN

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13099 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F MONTANA I N T H E M A T T E R O F T H E ESTATE O F MALINUS E. G U D M U N S E N , 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 District, Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant: Hutton, Sheehy and Cromley, B i l l i n g s , Montana John C. Sheehy argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent : William A. Blenkner and C. Ed Laws, Columbus, Montana Luxan, Murfitt and Davis, Helena, Montana Walter S. Murfitt argued, Helena, Montana Submitted: December 2, 1975 Decided : JAN J 4 I9T6 Filed: L-jA!'! 5 4 $976 M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s a n appeal from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , S t i l l w a t e r County, r e f u s i n g t o admit t o probate t h e purported holographic w i l l of Malinus E. Gudmunsen, deceased. Malinus E. Gudmunsen d i e d a s a r e s u l t of a f i r e i n h i s farm home near Rapelje, Montana. The d e a t h c e r t i f i c a t e set t h e d a t e of d e a t h a s December 1 4 , 1972. O n January 1 0 , 1973, Bruce Henderson, respondent, w a s appointed s p e c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e e s t a t e of Malinus E. Gudmunsen. I n January, 1973, respondent went t o Gudmansen's farm house and gathered what appeared t o be t h e v a l u a b l e papers of Gudmunsen, t a k i n g them home f o r s o r t i n g . Among t h e s e papers he found a document, w r i t t e n on t a b l e t paper, i n Gudmunsen's handwriting, which appeared t o be an attempt by Gudmunsen t o make a l a s t w i l l and testament. This document was i n a burned c o n d i t i o n , w i t h t h e edges having been singed and p a r t i a l l y burned away. A copy of t h e document i s here reproduced: Appellant, Andrew Campbell, was t h e stepson of Gudmunsen; was never adopted by him, but l i v e d with him from age 1 2 u n t i l e n t e r i n g t h e armed f o r c e s during World War I1 a t age 28. The record i s uncontradicted t h a t a p p e l l a n t and Gudmunsen were on very f r i e n d l y t e r m s and frequently v i s i t e d each o t h e r . Testimony i n t h e record i n d i c a t e s a p p e l l a n t was t h e n a t u r a l and d e s i r e d person t o whom Gudmunsen wished t o leave h i s property. On March 2 1 , 1974, respondent f i l e d i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t h i s p e t i t i o n f o r letters of administration, f i l i n g t h e purported w i l l f o r informational purposes. O n A p r i l 1, 1974, a p p e l l a n t f i l e d h i s c o n t e s t t o respondent's p e t i t i o n and a c r o s s - p e t i t i o n f o r letters of coadministration. A hearing was held May 7, 1974, on t h e p e t i t i o n s . O n June 12, 1974, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t entered its order denying t h e c o n t e s t and c r o s s - p e t i t i o n of a p p e l l a n t and r e f u s i n g probate of t h e purported holographic w i l l . Respond- e n t ' s p e t i t i o n f o r l e t t e r s of administration was granted. Appel- l a n t appeals t h e order. The i s s u e presented f o r review by t h i s Court i s whether a document purported t o be a holographic w i l l i s v a l i d a s a l a s t w i l l and testament i n Montana i f s a i d document i s t o t a l l y with- o u t a d a t e . A holographic w i l l is defined i n s e c t i o n 91-108, R.C.M. " * * * one t h a t i s e n t i r e l y w r i t t e n , dated, and signed by t h e hand of t h e t e s t a t o r himself. * * *" There i s no question t h a t under s e c t i o n 91-108, a d a t e , i n t h e t e s t a t o r ' s handwriting, i s required i n order t o have a v a l i d holographic w i l l . The p l a i n language of t h e s t a t - u t e says so. The d a t e need n o t be complete, so long as t h e month and year a r e p r e s e n t , I n r e I r v i n e ' s E s t a t e , 1 1 4 Mont. 577, 139 P.2d 489; but t h e d a t e must c o n t a i n a t l e a s t t h e month and year, E s t a t e of French, 137 Mont. 228, 351 P.2d 548; w e l l known abbreviations of t h e d a t e a r e s u f f i c i e n t , so long a s n o t w r i t t e n i n a confusing manner, 94 C.J.S. W i l l s 5 205, p. 1045; I n r e Van V o a s t ' s E s t a t e , 127 Mont. 450, 266 P.2d 377. I n any events i n Montana under s e c t i o n 91-108, a d a t e , w r i t t e n i n t h e t e s t a t o r ' s handwriting i s a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r holding a purported holographic w i l l v a l i d . A n examination of t h e f a c e of t h e purported holographic w i l l r e v e a l s no d a t e . The burned p o r t i o n s of t h e document do not provide s u f f i c i e n t space f o r t h e decedent t o have w r i t t e n o u t t h e d a t e i n f u l l nor even abbreviations of t h e d a t e . A l l d a t e s i n t h e body of t h e document a r e w r i t t e n o u t i n f u l l . W e agree with t h e finding of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h a t no d a t e appear- ed on t h e document p r i o r t o i t s p a r t i a l d e s t r u c t i o n o r a t t h e p r e s e n t time. Appellant argues t h a t a w i l l is t o be construed accord- ing t o t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e t e s t a t o r and h i s i n t e n t i o n s a r e t o be c a r r i e d o u t t o t h e i r f u l l e s t e x t e n t p o s s i b l e . Section 91-201, R.C.M. 1947. H e a l s o argues i n t e s t a c y i s t o be avoided and of two modes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a w i l l , t h e mode preventing total i n t e s t a c y i s preferred. Section 91-210, R.C.M. 1947. He argues f u r t h e r t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n s which lead t o i n t e s t a c y a r e n o t favored and such i n t e r p r e t a t i o n should come, i f reasonably p o s s i b l e , t o be placed upon a w i l l a s w i l l prevent t h a t r e s u l t . I n re Spriggs' E s t a t e , 70 Mont. 272, 225 P. 617. W e f i n d no f a u l t with t h e s e arguments, b u t a v a l i d w i l l must e x i s t before it can be construed o r i n t e r p r e t e d . N o v a l i d w i l l e x i s t s i n t h i s a c t i o n . A s Chief J u s t i c e Brantly s t a t e d i n I n r e Noyes' E s t a t e , 4 0 Mont. 178, 186, 187, 105 P. 1013: " * * * It i s n o t f o r t h e c o u r t s t o say t h a t a mode of execution o r a u t h e n t i c a t i o n , o t h e r than t h a t prescribed by law, subserves t h e same pur- pose, and i s equally e f f i c i e n t t o v a l i d a t e t h e instrument. The l e g i s l a t i v e mandates a r e supreme, and t h e r e i s no r i g h t t o make testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n except upon compliance with those mandates. * * *" The Chief J u s t i c e continued: " * * * After t h e w r i t i n g i s shown t o have been executed and authenticated by observance of t h e t e c h n i c a l requirements which t h e l e g i s l a t u r e has imposed, then t h e instrument w i l l be construed l i b e r a l l y i n order t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e t e s t a t o r ' s i n t e n t i o n . Upon t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r probate, however, t h e s o l e inquiry about which t h e c o u r t i s concerned is whether t h e s e requirements have been complied with. The c o u r t s may n o t , t h e r e f o r e , o u t of regard f o r t h e supposed i n t e n t i o n of t h e t e s t a t o r , however c l e a r l y it may be manifested by t h e a t t e n d a n t circumstances, adopt a r u l e which would open t h e way f o r t h e same frauds which t h e s t a t u t e w a s designed t o prevent. * * *" W e r e a f f i r m t h i s reasoning. Appellant argues t h e Uniform Probate Code (U.P.C.), e f f e c t i v e J u l y 1, 1975, is a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e purported w i l l and t h e probate c o n t e s t . W e do n o t agree. The p e r t i n e n t s t a t u t o r y language is contained i n s e c t i o n 91A-6-102, R.C.M. 1947: "Effective d a t e . (1) This code t a k e s e f f e c t J u l y 1, 1975. " ( 2 ) Except a s provided elsewhere i n t h i s code, on t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h i s code: " ( a ) t h e code a p p l i e s t o any w i l l s of decedents dying t h e r e a f t e r ; " ( b ) t h e code a p p l i e s t o any proceedings i n c o u r t then pending o r t h e r e a f t e r commenced r e g a r d l e s s of t h e t i m e of t h e d e a t h of decedent except t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i n t h e opinion of t h e c o u r t t h e former procedure should be made a p p l i c a b l e i n a p a r t i c u l a r case i n t h e i n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e o r because of in- f e a s i b i l i t y of a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e procedure of t h i s code; " ( d ) an a c t done before t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e i n any proceeding and any accrued r i g h t is n o t impaired by t h i s code. * * *" (Emphasis added.) By t h i s language, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended t h e procedural r u l e s of t h e U.P.C. should apply t o any probate proceeding pend- ing o r commenced a f t e r J u l y 1, 1975. The substantive r u l e s of t h e U.P.C. a r e not given r e t r o a c t i v e o r r e t r o s p e c t i v e e f f e c t , but only apply t o t h e w i l l s of decedents dying a f t e r J u l y 1, 1975. t h e w i l l of A l l proceedings i n t h e probate of/Malinus E. Gudmunsen, excepting t h i s appeal, occurred p r i o r t o J u l y 1, 1975. He died on December 1 4 , 1972. Respondent's p e t i t i o n w a s f i l e d March 21, 1974, and a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t e s t and c r o s s - p e t i t i o n w e r e f i l e d April 1, 1974. The hearing w a s held May 7, 1974, and t h e order was entered June 12, 1974. The new d e f i n i t i o n of a holographic w i l l , s e c t i o n 91A- 2-503, R.C.M. 1947, would not apply t o t h e purported holographic w i l l i n t h i s a c t i o n , s i n c e t h e decedent died p r i o r t o t h e e f f e c - t i v e d a t e of t h e U.P.C. Due t o t h e i n a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h e U.P.C. t o t h i s a c t i o n w e need not determine whether a d a t e i s required on a holographic w i l l under t h e U.P.C. It i s a d i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n t o d e c l a r e a w i l l i n v a l i d which c l e a r l y contains t h e d e s i r e s of a t e s t a t o r a s t o t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of h i s property t o those he f e l t c l o s e s t t o i n l i f e , e s p e c i a l l y when those persons w i l l r e c e i v e l i t t l e o r nothing by way of in- t e s t a t e succession, but what was s a i d by Chief J u s t i c e Johnson i n h i s d i s s e n t i n I n r e I r v i n e ' s E s t a t e , 1 1 4 Mont. 577, 594, comes t o mind: " I t i s a well known saying t h a t hard cases make bad law, meaning t h a t t h e sympathies of judges sometimes tend t o i n t e r f e r e with t h e i r i m p a r t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n of l e g a l r u l e s , a s where t h e n a t u r a l disappointment of a prospective l e g a t e e is per- mitted t o obscure t h e f a c t t h a t t h e document has not been executed a s required by s t a t u t e and t h e r e f o r e does not c o n s t i t u t e a w i l l . However, i n t h e g r e a t majority of c a s e s t h e c o u r t s suppress t h e s e sympathies i n order t o keep o u r government one of laws and n o t of men." The order t h e d i s t m u r t i s affirmed./ / ! - Chief J u s t i c e We concur: Justices