Title: In Re Estate of Gillen
Citation: 191 Kan. 254, 380 P.2d 357
Docket Number: 43,144
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: April 6, 1963

191 Kan. 254 (1963)
380 P.2d 357
In the Matter of the Estate of Leslie O. Gillen, Deceased.
NETA CLAIR GILLEN, Appellant,
v.
MARSHALL GILLEN, Executor of the Estate of Leslie O. Gillen, Appellee.
No. 43,144

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed April 6, 1963.
Harry W. Saums, of Wichita, argued the cause and Robert T. Stephan and Eugene L. Pirtle, both of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellant.
Enos E. Hook, of Wichita, argued the cause and John H. Gerety and Sidney L. Foulston, Jr., both of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
JACKSON, J.:
In this case we have a widow attempting to show that the antenuptial contract, which she admits was entered into before her marriage to her late husband, did not bind her after her husband's death and that she is entitled to claim her interest in the husband's property under the laws of Kansas.
Mrs. Neta Clair Huckleberry and Leslie O. Gillen, both of whom had been married before, became engaged to be married in January, 1960. Some time in March of the same year Mr. Gillen took Mrs. Huckleberry to the office of his lawyer Mr. John Gerety, where Mr. Gerety read aloud to them a proposed antenuptial contract. We must assume that Gillen had talked with his bride-to-be about such a contract before this talk with Mr. Gerety.
*255 Mr. Gerety handed to Mrs. Huckleberry a copy of the contract to take with her and urged that she obtain independent legal advice. Mr. Gerety also told the parties that each should give the other a statement of the property owned by them. The wife says this was done by Mr. Gillen sometime during the month of March in Mr. Gerety's office.
On April 26, 1960, the parties signed a completed antenuptial contract and Mr. Gerety made certain that Mrs. Huckleberry had a complete copy of the final contract. Mr. Gillen and Mrs. Huckleberry were married on April 30, 1960. Mr. Gillen died on July 16, 1961. He left a will which he had executed March 25, 1959, more than a year before he was married.
The Gillen estate is shown by the inventory as having total assets of $152,578.82. Mrs. Gillen's estate was of no substantial amount.
The antenuptial contract did provide that the wife might have a life estate in the homestead of the parties. The wife now says that there will be no way for her to pay taxes and repairs on the house and that she will have insufficient income to enable her to live in the home.
The executor in this case makes no secret of the fact that the contract in this case is based upon the contract approved in the case In re Estate of Neis, 170 Kan. 254, 225 P.2d 110. True in the Neis case the wife received a legacy of $15,000 which Mrs. Gillen did not receive but there is no question that Mrs. Gillen was fully advised concerning the contract she signed and was advised concerning her prospective husband's property. She was advised to obtain independent legal advice but chose not to do so. She had a full copy of the contract before signing it and was enough of a business woman to know what she was doing.
In a later case, In re Estate of Ward, 178 Kan. 366, 285 P.2d 1081, the wife asserted overreaching by the seventy-two year old husband  a matter which Mrs. Gillen does not seem to assert  but we upheld the contract saying in the first syllabus of the case:
Other cases with similar holdings are: Hafer v. Hafer, 33 Kan. 449, 6 Pac. 537; Watson v. Watson, 104 Kan. 578, 180 Pac. 242; In re Estate of Cantrell, 154 Kan. 546, 119 P.2d 483; In re Estate of Place, 166 Kan. 528, 203 P.2d 132; and In re Estate of Schippel, 169 Kan. 151, 218 P.2d 192.
The instant case gets down to the point that although Mrs. Gillen was quite adequately advised of the provisions of the contract, she was quite effectively cut off without anything from her husband's estate. All she received was her right in the homestead which the husband could not deny to her. (See In re Estate of Neis, supra, p. 264 et seq.)
On the other hand, it would seem hard to find a case where a woman was better advised of her rights by her prospective husband and his attorney.
Turning to In re Estate of Cantrell, supra, at page 551, we find the following:
We can but feel that the wife in the case at bar had an opportunity to understand and was capable of understanding the contract to a greater degree than the wife in the Cantrell case. Here whatever Mrs. Gillen did not understand would seem to be largely her own fault. As said in the above quotation, antenuptial contracts are favored if it appears they have been understandingly made. It would be difficult to say that in this case Mrs. Gillen did not understand what the contract amounted to at the time she signed it.
Since that was true, and since she was urged to obtain independent legal advice and did not do so, it would seem that the trial court should be affirmed. It is so ordered.