Title: Williams v. CHASTAIN
Citation: 221 Or. 69, 350 P.2d 430
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: March 23, 1960

Affirmed March 23, 1960.
*70 Eugene E. Feltz, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Jacob, Jones &amp; Brown, Portland.
C.X. Bollenback, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Eugene C. Libby, Portland.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and WARNER, SLOAN and HOLMAN, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
HOLMAN, J. (Pro Tempore)
The plaintiff David Gorton Williams brought this suit to impress a trust on all of the assets of the estate of Charles R. Layton. The defendants are the executor of Layton's estate, Huse Chastain, and the beneficiaries under his last will and testament, Ellen Greene and George L. Greene, who were, respectively, the sister and nephew of decedent. The principal asset of the estate was a note in the approximate sum of $10,000 signed by plaintiff and secured by mortgages on a home in Laurelhurst Addition in Portland and its contents.
Plaintiff and decedent had become acquainted around 1940 while plaintiff worked as a hair stylist and decedent as a credit manager for the Bedell Company *71 in Portland. Shortly thereafter, they took an apartment together. After a short term in the Army by decedent, they continued to live together and eventually in 1944 they purchased the home in Laurelhurst in their joint names and moved into it, together with plaintiff's mother and father. Plaintiff's mother was seriously ill and died shortly thereafter but plaintiff's father continued to live there, as long as plaintiff and decedent occupied the premises, with one absence of about a year. Plaintiff and decedent lived together until 1953, when they had a disagreement and decedent moved out and plaintiff and his father remained.
Immediately after taking up their abode together, they commenced acquiring household effects among which were many antiques and reproductions which were apparently quite valuable. During the latter part of their relationship the contents of the home were appraised for fire insurance purposes in the approximate amount of $40,000, though there is no indication that anything like this amount was paid for them. They paid $11,500 for the home but it was mortgaged to the extent of some $9,000. They pooled and commingled their earnings and from time to time had a joint bank account. In November of 1945, they drew wills in which, except for small bequests to relatives, they left their estates to each other and in case of death of both through a common accident, their estates were to be divided equally between two of plaintiff's and two of decedent's relatives.
The pertinent part of decedent's will was as follows:
The plaintiff's will was identical in these respects with decedent's except the decedent was the beneficiary.
At the same time, the parties executed an agreement concerning their wills which was as follows:
Plaintiff's and decedent's relationship was apparently a stormy one at times. The record indicates there were a series of disagreements, sometimes somewhat violent, and several times decedent moved from the premises but they would subsequently make up and decedent would return. In 1953 they had a final parting and decedent moved out and did not return.
After decedent's removal in 1953 from the home, he executed a new will on April 9, 1954, revoking the will in favor of plaintiff and leaving all of his property to the defendants Greene, his sister and nephew. There is no evidence that he notified plaintiff of his plans to revoke his will. Thereafter, on April 20, 1954, decedent sold his interest in their joint property, both real and personal, to plaintiff for the sum of $10,000 payable at $50 per month without interest. He gave a bill of sale and deed to the plaintiff and took back mortgages on both the real and personal property to secure payment of the money. Decedent died on November 7, 1955. Plaintiff introduced his will in favor of decedent into evidence and testified it was still in effect, had never been revoked, and that he had no notice until after decedent's death that decedent had revoked his will in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff now *74 brings this suit to impress a trust on the assets of decedent's estate, claiming he had an enforceable contract with decedent requiring decedent to leave all of his property to him.
Defendants have three principal contentions in defense. First defendants contend that the wills and contract when construed together result in an ambiguity because it is not clear whether plaintiff and decedent intended that all of their property should go to the other or just their joint property, and that if all the facts and circumstances concerning the relationship of the parties and the documents themselves are construed together it was the intention of the parties that the wills should only act upon their joint property. There being no joint property at the time of death, they claim there was nothing for the will to act upon.
Second, defendants also contend that a contract to keep mutual wills in effect can be revoked by either except where one party has accepted property by the will of the other who has predeceased him.
Third, defendants contend the contract and the wills were the result of undue influence practiced by plaintiff upon decedent.
The first point of inquiry concerns whether plaintiff and decedent had a contract concerning only their jointly held property or all of their property. There can be no doubt from recitations in the written instruments and the testimony of the witnesses that there was a contract between them for mutual wills.
1. Many loose comments concerning the irrevocability of mutual wills have resulted in the cases and legal treatises from the failure to distinguish between contracts to make wills and the wills themselves and the rules applicable to each. See Ankeny v. Lieuallen, 169 *75 Or 206, 216, 113 P2d 1113, 127 P2d 735; and Estate of Engle, 129 Or 77, 82, 276 P 270, as illustrations of this. Contract rules have been applied to wills and the law of wills to contracts with much resultant confusion. There is no such thing as an irrevocable will. This has now been made clear by the subsequent cases of Irwin v. First Nat'l Bank, 212 Or 534, 321 P2d 299; and Van Vlack et al. v. Van Vlack, 181 Or 646, 665, 182 P2d 969, 185 P2d 575, which have returned to the rule laid down in In re Burke's Estate 66 Or 252, 256, 134 P 11. Also see Gardner on Wills (2d ed) ch IV, p 64, § 19. In the case of Irwin v. First Nat'l Bank, supra, Mr. Justice McALLISTER speaking for the Court stated as follows at page 540:
There is a statement concerning the same matter by Professor Sparks of New York University in his book "Contracts To Make Wills," New York University Press, 1956, p 110:
Because of the view we take of defendants' first contention, we are not passing upon defendants' second contention that there is a unilateral right to revoke a contract to make mutual wills unless the party attempting to revoke has already accepted the fruits of the bargain upon the death of the other party. The Oregon court has apparently not been faced with the specific question of whether mutual promises to make wills are adequate consideration for each other so that one party may not thereafter void the contract by unilateral action.
2. A person coming into court to assert his rights in a case such as this is attempting, as the plaintiff is, to take not under the will but under the contract. The decedent revoked his mutual will in this case and he had a right to do so. His new will is perfectly valid and not subject to be set aside. By executing a new will and revoking the mutual will he may have breached his contract with plaintiff, thus making his assets at death subject to enforcement of the contract, but this has no bearing upon his power to revoke his will. Therefore, it is of primary importance to determine the exact contract that was entered into between decedent *77 and plaintiff. The wills are merely the means by which a contract for mutual wills is carried into effect.
The evidence shows that the written contract and wills were entered into simultaneously, though the contract speaks in the past tense when referring to the wills:
Actually, the written contract appears to be for the purpose of an agreement as to revocability though it contains recitations of the purpose of the parties in making their contract for mutual wills. It does not appear in itself to be a contract to make wills, but rather a written memorandum of the contract the parties did make. It is particularly important to try to determine whether it was the intention of the parties to will to each other all of their property or just their joint property. In this connection, it would appear that its recitations are ambiguous in that it contains three recitations concerning joint property as follows:
while it contains one recitation concerning all of their property:
3. The testimony of Garthe Brown, the attorney who drew the instruments for the parties, concerning the circumstances was as follows:
Again he testified:
The plaintiff himself also testified as follows:
It would also be proper to take into consideration any statements made in their wills in determining the parties' contract. By this we do not mean that the wills are the contract, but they can be considered as evidentiary matter in determining the intent of the parties with reference to the contract. Decedent's will had in it an outright devise and bequest to plaintiff of all decedent's property but it also contains the following statement of the reason the will was made:
This recitation in the will is in itself ambiguous.
4. It would appear to us from the above statements of intention, both in the will and in the contract, and from the oral testimony of the witnesses, that the contract covered only jointly held property. Their concern seemed to be disposition of the things they jointly acquired. The wills which were executed by the parties as a result of the agreement purported to leave all of their property to each other but this is not necessarily inconsistent with an agreement to leave only joint property. They could and did go further than their contract required and leave all of their *80 property to each other, but plaintiff in this case cannot complain that decedent subsequently withdrew, without his consent, that which he was not obligated to give in the first place, to wit, property other than joint property. There being no joint property in existence at the time of the death of decedent, there was no property concerning which they had contracted. As a result, plaintiff was not and could not have been damaged by decedent's revocation of his will.
In view of the foregoing determination that the contract between the parties covered only jointly held property, it is unnecessary for us to consider whether any undue influence was exercised by the plaintiff upon the decedent as a result of their rather unusual relationship.
The decree of the trial court is affirmed.