Title: Chambers v. Younes

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

399 S.W.2d 655 (1966) Lois R. CHAMBERS, Appellant, v. Rex YOUNES, Admr, Appellee. No. 5-3783. Supreme Court of Arkansas. March 7, 1966. *656 Fitton & Meadows, Harrison, for appellant. N. J. Henley, Marshall, for appellee. JOHNSON, Justice. This appeal is from denial of a petition to set aside probate of a will. On September 24, 1962, Boyd Ruff died leaving surviving his wife, no issue, three brothers and a sister. After his funeral Mrs. Ruff found in his wallet a blank check on the back of which was written a purported holographic will. On March 13, 1964, Modene Ruff, the widow, filed a petition in Searcy Probate Court for admission of the instrument to probate as a will, nominating appellee Rex Younes as administrator with will annexed. On March 14th the instrument was admitted to probate and letters of administration issued to appellee on March 19, 1964. On September 11, 1964, appellant Lois R. Chambers, sister of decedent, filed a petition to set aside the will on the grounds that (1) on its face it was not a valid holographic will, (2) it did not show a valid intent to make a will, and (3) that it did not show it was executed with the lawful testamentary intent, and prayed for dismissal of probate and distribution of the estate according to the laws of descent and distribution. Decedent's three brothers did not join in this contest. At trial the court admitted extrinsic evidence in support of the will over the objection of appellant. From the decree of May 12, 1965, finding the instrument to be a valid holographic will and the last will and testament of Boyd Ruff, and dismissing appellant's petition, comes this appeal. Appellant has prefaced her argument with the statement that it is not disputed that the words written on the instrument were in the handwriting of the decedent, nor is it disputed that the handwriting was proven in accordance with the applicable statute on proving holographic wills, and further, there is no question of competency or undue influence. The instrument in controversy reads simply as follows: The statute on holographic wills is Ark. Stat.Ann. § 60-404 (Supp.1965): The statute on testimony to prove a will is Ark.Stat.Ann. § 62-2117 (Supp.1965): For reversal appellant urges that the trial court erred in admitting extrinsic evidence to prove testamentary intent. This precise question has not been directly answered by this court in any of the multitude of cases on Arkansas holographic wills. A section in 94 C.J.S. Wills § 203, p. 1038. however, discusses our holdings and reflects our persuasion: Review of our cases clearly indicates that our courts have customarily admitted extrinsic testimony to establish testamentary intent, without considering whether the statute on proof of a holographic will (§ 62-2117, supra) expressly permits such testimony. Perusal of Arendt v. Arendt, 80 Ark. 204, 96 S.W. 982, and Weems v. Smith, 218 Ark. 554, 237 S.W.2d 880, and the letters therein held to be valid holographic wills, it is apparent that extrinsic testimony was necessary to fortify the finding of existence of testamentary intent. We think this is proper. As was said in Arendt v. Arendt, supra: Appellant's second point urged for reversal is that the instrument, on its face, fails to show that it was testamentary in character and executed with testamentary intent. Our ruling on the first point, i. e., that inquiry may be made into all relevant circumstances where the existence of testamentary intent is in doubt, disposes also of this point. Appellant's final point is that the evidence of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the instrument is insufficient to show that the instrument was testamentary in character or that it was executed with the necessary testamentary intent. The probate court found decedent had a serious coronary condition which he knew about, and was aware that his life might be terminated on pretty short order, that the parties had been married for many years, had no children, lived together and got along well, the decedent's wife was the natural object of his bounty, and that the will was executed within a fairly short time prior to his death following another severe heart attack, and, finally, that the instrument was the valid and last will of decedent. Review of the record reveals no testimony which fails to support these findings, and judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.