Title: ESTATE OF AAGESON
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 85-069
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 11, 1985

No. 8 5 - 6 9 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 5 I N THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ASMUND AAGESON, D e c e a s e d . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T w e l f t h Judicial D i s t r i c t , I n and for the C o u n t y of H i l l , T h e H o n o r a b l e M. J a m e s Sorte, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For A p p e l l a n t : M o s e s L a w F i r m , B i l l i n g s , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : A r o n o w , A n d e r s o n , B e a t t y & L e e , Shelby, M o n t a n a Waldo Spangelo, H a v r e , M o n t a n a F i l e d : S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : A p r i l 25, 1 9 8 5 D e c i d e d : J u l y C l e r k M r . J u s t i c e Frank £3. Morrison, Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Three c h i l d r e n o f t h e deceased, Asmund Aageson, appeal t h e December 7 , 1984, o r d e r of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l District Court d i s m i s s i n g t h . e i r p e t i t i o n s f o r p r o b a t e o f wil.1.s dated September 5 , 1980, and J u l y 15, 1980. By t h a t same o r d e r , t h e District Court admitted i n t o p r o b a t e a w i l l dated Decem- b e r 30, 1964, t o g e t h e r w i t h i t s two c o d i c i l s , dated December 17, 1974, and November 1 0 , 1-975. W e a f f i r m t h e o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court. Asmund and E l l a Aageson, husband and w i f e , operated a farm n o r t h of G i l d f o r d , Montana, c o n s i s t i n g of approximately 1,980 a c r e s . They had f i v e c h i l d r e n , one o f whom predeceased h i s p a r e n t s . The remaining f o u r a r e Arvin, Eugene, Delia (Lorraine) and Nan. Lorraine and Nan moved from Montana i n t h e 1940's and now l i v e i n C a l i f o r n i a and Washington, respec- t i v e l y . Eugene acquired h i s own farm i n t h e same g e n e r a l a r e a . Arvin served i n t h e m i l i t a r y d u r i n g World War I1 b e f o r e r e t u r n i n g t o t h e family farm. He t h e n acquired a d j a c e n t farm land and e n t e r e d i n t o a farming p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h h i s f a t h e r i n e i t h e r 1948 o r 1949. Asmund and E l l a r e t i r e d from a c t i v e farming i n 1951 and moved t o S e a t t l e , Washington. To f a c i l i t a t e h i s continued o p e r a t i o n o f t h e farm, Arvin was granted a power o f a t t o r n e y p e r m i t t i n g him t o sell g r a i n , s i g n checks and e n t e r i n t o farm programs. However, he was n o t allowed t o sell o r encumber h i s p a r e n t s ' land. Pursuant t o an e s t a t e p l a n recommended by Asmund's a t t o r n e y , M r . Kilbourne, Asmund and Arvin terminated t h e i r p a r t n e r s h i p i n December 1964 and e n t e r e d i n t o a l e a s e agree- ment. Asmund and E l l a a l s o executed w i l l s dated December 30, 1964, whereby Arvin was t o r e c e i v e 1,020 a c r e s while t h e remaining 960 a c r e s w e r e t o p a s s one-third each t o Eugene, Lorraine and Nan. Four hundred e i g h t y a c r e s o f t h e farm land were i n E l l a ' s name. Under E l l a ' s w i l l , t h o s e a c r e s w e r e t o be i n h e r i t e d by Arvin, s u b j e c t t o Asmund's l i f e i n t e r e s t i n t h e income from t h e land. F u r t h e r , t h e o i l and gas r o y a l t i e s on t h o s e lands w e r e t o go t o Arvin, Eugene, Lorraine and Nan, e q u a l l y . The remaining 1,500 a c r e s w e r e i n Asmund's name. By Asmund's w i l l , Arvin was t o receive 540 a c r e s while Eu- gene, Lorraine and Nan w e r e each t o have 320 a c r e s . These lands were s u b j e c t t o t h e same r o y a l t y r e s e r v a t i o n s set f o r t h i n E l l a ' s w i l l . T h e r e a f t e r , i n t h e e a r l y 1970s, M r . Kilbourne advised Arvin regarding h i s own e s t a t e and recommended t h a t "a gener- a t i o n skipping device" be employed t o prevent A r v i n ' s e s t a t e from being taxed f o r t h e farm lands. Accordingly, Asmund and E l l a executed c o d i c i l s t o t h e i r w i l l s on December 17, 1974, v e s t i n g t h e lands Arvin was t o r e c e i v e upon t h e i r d e a t h s i n A r v i n ' s sons, David and Verges. David and Verges had re- mained a t home, a s s i s t i n g t h e i r f a t h e r w i t h t h e family farm. Arvin and h i s sons subsequently formed a p a r t n e r s h i p , Aageson Grain and C a t t l e . O n November 10, 1975, Asmund and E l l a replaced t h e o r i g i n a l 1964 farm l e a s e t o Arvin w i t h a new l e a s e t o t h e p a r t n e r s h i p . The two l e a s e s a r e v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l except t h e l e a s e t o t h e p a r t n e r s h i p : (1) covered a l l p r o p e r t i e s mentioned i n t h e 1964 w i l l s ; and ( 2 ) g r a n t e d t o t h e l e s s e e , upon Asmund's d e a t h , t h e o p t i o n t o purchase f o r $118,680, t h e 960 a c r e s devised t o Eugene, L o r r a i n e and Nan i n Asmund' s 1964 w i l l , excepting t h e r o y a l t y i n t e r e s t s . The $118,680 represented t h e f a i r market value o f t h e land a t t h a t t i m e . (The f a i r market v a l u e o f t h e land was $356,410 a t t h e t i m e o f Asmund's d e a t h . ) The second c o d i c i l , a l s o d a t e d November 10, 1 9 7 5 , r e f e r - enced t h e new l e a s e and provided t h a t should t h e o p t i o n t o purchase b e e x e r c i s e d , Eugene, L o r r a i n e and Nan would r e c e i v e t h e p r o c e e d s i n e q u a l s h a r e s . I n t h e s p r i n g o f 1978, David and Verges purchased t h e f a m i l y farm from Arvin. I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e f i n a n c i n g of t h e p u r c h a s e , Asmund and E l l a executed a mortqage on t h e l a n d s t h e y had d e v i s e d t o Arvin. The 960 a c r e s d e v i s e d t o Eugene, L o r r a i n e and Nan were n o t mortgaged s o t h a t i f t h e o p t i o n t o purchase was n o t e x e r c i s e d , t h e l a n d s would p a s s unencumbered. With Asmund's and E l l a ' s c o n s e n t , t h e e x i s t i n g farm l e a s e was a s s i g n e d t o David and Verges. Asmund and E l l a had s o l d t h e i r home i n S e a t t l e i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1974 and moved i n t o t h e Tacoma Lutheran Home and Retirement Community i n Tacoma, Washington, approximately 12 m i l e s from Nan's home. Nan v i s i t e d h e r p a r e n t s e v e r y week- end, t a k i n g them shopping and t o h e r home f o r Sunday d i n n e r . Arvin phoned a t l e a s t weekly t o u p d a t e h i s f a t h e r on t h e p r o g r e s s o f t h e farm. H e a l s o v i s i t e d h i s p a r e n t s s e v e r a l t i m e s a y e a r . Eugene's and L o r r a i n e ' s c o n t a c t w i t h t h e i r p a r e n t s was more l i m i t e d . E l l a Aageson d i e d on February 28, 1979. P r o b a t e o f h e r 1 9 6 4 w i l l and i t s 1974 and 1975 c o d i c i l s was commenced i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1980 i n H i l l County, Montana, w i t h Arvin and Eugene a p p o i n t e d a s co-executors o f t h e e s t a t e . However, d e s p i t e t h r e e i n q u i r i e s from t h i s C o u r t , a s o f t h e d a t e o f t h e t r i a l of t h i s c a u s e Eugene had f a i l e d t o e x e c u t e t h e f i n a l p a p e r s . There was l i t t l e d i s c o r d w i t h i n t h e Aageson f a m i l y u n t i l E l l a ' s d e a t h , when Eugene, L o r r a i n e and Nan l e a r n e d o f t h e o p t i o n t o purchase t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n t h e farm. A t Asmund's 9 1 s t b i r t h d a y p a r t y on February 2 5 , 1980, t h e f a m i l y members and a moderator h e l d a meeting a t which Arvin was t o l d o f h i s s i b l i n g s ' d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . Arvin was advised n o t t o e x e r c i s e t h e o p t i o n t o purchase. An accounting o f t h e farm's proceeds was requested. Nan demanded t h a t Eugene be given h i s devised land immediately. Arvin refused t o acquiesce t o t h e demands o f h i s s i b l i n g s . Asmund was p r e s e n t , b u t d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e a t t h e meeting. H e a p p a r e n t l y was unable t o e i t h e r h e a r o r under- stand what was occurring. I n May 1980, Nan determined t h a t h e r f a t h e r needed an a t t o r n e y t o r e p r e s e n t h i s interests. She contacted Warren Peterson, t h e a t t o r n e y f o r t h e U n i v e r s i t y f o r which she worked, and requested t h a t he v i s i t w i t h Asmund r e g a r d i n g some e s t a t e m a t t e r s . Though a t t r i a l s h e denied having done s o , Nan a p p a r e n t l y furnished Peterson w i t h c o p i e s o f a t l e a s t h e r f a t h e r ' s w i l l and c o d i c i l s , and p o s s i b l y t h e farm l e a s e . A t a meeting on May 2 7 , 1980, Asmund and Peterson d i s c u s s e d t h e f a c t s t h a t A r v i n ' s f i x e d p r i c e on t h e o p t i o n t o purchase was t o o low and would be u n f a i r t o Asmund's o t h e r c h i l d r e n , and t h a t Arvin needed t o provide h i s f a t h e r w i t h an account- i n g o f t h e f a r m ' s business. F u r t h e r , Peterson suggested t o Asmund, p e r h i s d e p o s i t i o n , t h a t Peterson w r i t e Arvin t o i n q u i r e a s t o h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o r e n e g o t i a t e t h e purchase p r i c e t o r e f l e c t t h e f a F r market v a l u e o f t h e farm upon Asmund's d e a t h and t o demand an accounting. The letter was w r i t t e n . Upon Asmund's approval, t h e letter was s e n t t o Arvin . A r v i n ' s r e p l y was an unresponsive, angry l e t t e r , which was shown t o Asmund by Peterson. Peterson t h e n wrote a n o t h e r letter t o Arvin, which a p p a r e n t l y went unanswered. Subsequently, a t a J u l y 1, 1980, meeting a t t h e n u r s i n g home, Peterson presented Asmund w i t h documents revoking A r v i n ' s power o f a t t o r n e y and g r a n t i n g a new, g e n e r a l power o f a t t o r n e y t o Nan, i n c l u d i n g t h e r i g h t t o sell Asmund's land. Those documents w e r e signed and a d e c i s i o n was made t o d r a f t a new w i l l , e l i m i n a t i n g Arvin and h i s c h i l d r e n . While a d m i t t i n g t h a t t h e npw w i l l was n o t e n t i r e l y e q u i t a b l e , Peterson t e s t i f i e d a t h i s d e p o s i t i o n t h a t h e and Asmund thought such a w i l l would be more e q u i t a b l e t h a n t h e 1 9 6 4 w i l l , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e Arvin and h i s sons would b e r e t a i n i n g t h e option t o purchase a t a p r i c e s u b s t a n t i a l l y below f a i r market value. Because he was concerned about Asmund's competency t o execute a w i l l , Peterson contacted Asmund's d o c t o r , E r n e s t Randolph. D r . Randolph responded t h a t on t h e b a s i s o f h i s monthly v i s i t s w i t h Asmund, he was u n c e r t a i n whether on any given day Asmund would be competent t o execu,te v . a .b,will. Peterson t h e r e f o r e requested D r . Randolph' s presence a t t h e t i m e of t h e a c t u a l execution, J u l y 15, 1980. O n t h a t d a t e , D r . Randolph questioned Asmund concerning personal d a t a , h i s c h i l d r e n , h i s p r o p e r t y and t h e n a t u r e of h i s a c t i o n s under t h e new w i l l . Both D r . Randolph and Peter- son w e r e then s a t i s f i e d t h a t Asmund was competent t o execute a w i l l and t h e w i l l was signed. There w e r e no o t h e r witnesses. Arvin was informed o f t h e revocation of h i s power o f a t t o r n e y and Nan's general power o f a t t o r n e y on August 11, 1980. H e was n o t t o l d o f t h e n e w w i l l . Upon l e g a l a d v i c e , Arvin presented h i s f a t h e r w i t h a new power o f a t t o r n e y f o r h i m s e l f , a s w e l l a s an e x t e n s i o n o f t h e e x i s t i n g 1975 farm l e a s e providing t h a t i f any farm lands w e r e s o l d , Arvin would have t h e r i g h t o f f i r s t r e f u s a l t o m e e t t h e p r i c e . These documents were signed i n Asmund's room on August 29, 1980. A t l e a s t f o u r n u r s i n g home s t a f f members and a l e g a l secre- t a r y witnessed t h e execution of t h e documents. Most o f t h o s e w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t though t h e y had been s k e p t i c a l a t f i r s t , t h e y thought upon s e e i n g and t a l k i n g with Asmund t h a t he was competent t o execute t h e documents. Asmund a p p a r e n t l y t o l d Nan t h a t Arvin had had him s i g n some new documents. Nan then contacted Peterson, who recom- mended t h a t Asmund be brought t o s e e him. Eugene took Asmund t o P e t e r s o n ' s o f f i c e on September 5 , 1980. Asmund was unable t o remember what documents he had signed f o r Arvin. There- f o r e , a f t e r s a t i s f y i n g himself t h a t Asmund was a g a i n compe- t e n t t o execute a w i l l , Peterson had Asmund re-execute t h e J u l y 15, 1980, w i l l and s i g n documents revoking any power o f a t t o r n e y given t o A r v i n and r e e s t a b l i s h i n g a g e n e r a l power o f a t t o r n e y i n Nan. Arvin took no responsive a c t i o n . However Nan, on Octo- b e r 2 4 , 1980, through lawyer Peterson, p e t i t i o n e d t h e c o u r t i n Tacoma, Washington, t o have Asmund d e c l a r e d incompetent and t o have h e r s e l f appointed guardian o f h i s person and e s t a t e . A guardian ad l i t e m was appointed t o r e p r e s e n t Asmund i n t h o s e proceedings. The c o u r t subsequently appoint- ed Nan guardian o f Asmund's person. However, on t h e recom- mendation o f Asmund's guardian ad l i t e m , a bank i n Tacoma, Washington, was appointed guardian o f Asmund's e s t a t e . L i t t l e else r e l e v a n t t o t h i s c a s e occurred u n t i l Asmund's d e a t h on J u l y 18, 1983. A t t h a t t i m e , Nan acquired t h e 1980 w i l l s from Peterson and gave them t o Eugene. O n August 3 , 1983, Arvin and Eugene, a s co-executors o f t h e 1964 w i l l , m e t with t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e a t t o r n e y s t o o b t a i n Asmund's 1964 w i l l and t h e 1974 and 1975 c o d i c i l s from Asmund's s a f e t y d e p o s i t box. They b o t h signed a p e t i t i o n for p r o b a t e o f t h a t w i l l t h a t same day. However, t h e next morning, s t i l l without d i s c l o s i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e 1980 w i l l s , Eugene c a l l e d A r v i n ' s a t t o r n e y and advised him n o t t o f i l e t h e p e t i t i o n . Nothing happened u n t i l October 1 2 , 1983, when Arvin, a s one of t h e co-executors of t h e 1964 w i l l , f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r probate of t h a t w i l l and accompanying c o d i c i . 1 ~ . Negotia- t i o n s between A r v i n ' s and Eugene's a t t o r n e y s postponed t h e h e a r i n g on t h a t p e t i t i o n u n t i l November 29, 1983. F i n a l l y , on t h e evening o f November 28, 1983, Eugene's a t t o r n e y in- formed A r v i n ' s a t t o r n e y o f t h e September 5 , 1980, will.. Eugene f i l e d t h a t w i l l f o r probate on t h e morning o f November 29, 1983. During t h e h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n s t o probate t h e two w i l l s , held t h a t same day, no mention was made o f t h e J u l y 3.5, 1980, w i l l . F u r t h e r , Eugene t o l d t h e judge t h a t he had n o t produced t h e September 1980 w i l l e a r l i - e r because he " d i d n ' t t h i n k w e would have t o produce it . . . [blecause we could settle o u t o f court.'' (Tr. o f November 29, 1983, a t p. 25.) N o determination regarding which w i l l t o probate was reached t h a t day and t h e m a t t e r was continued. The next h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r was held October 22 and 23, 1984, following which t h e t r i a l judge admitted t h e 1964 w i l l and accompanying c o d i c i l s i n t o probate. I n h i s o r d e r , t h e t r i a l judge held b o t h t h a t Asmund was n o t competent t o execute t h e 1980 w i l l s and t h a t Asmund had been unduly i n f l u - enced i n executing t h o s e w i l l s . I n t h e i r appeal o f t h a t o r d e r , Eugene, Nan and Lorraine r a i s e t h e following i s s u e s : 1. Was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t s u b s t a n t i a l , c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s conclusion t h a t Asmund Aageson was incompetent on J u l y 1 5 , 1980, a t t h e t i m e he executed h i s l a s t w i l l and testament o f J u l y 15, 1.980? 2. Was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t s u b s t a n t i a l , c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s conclusion t h a t Asmund Aageson was incompetent on September 5, 1980, when he executed his Last Will and Testament dated September 5, 1980? 3. Was there sufficient substantia 1, credible evidence to support the District Court's conclusion that Asmund Aageson was under the undue influence of Nan Nolkleberg, Eugene Aageson and/or their agents on July 15, 1980, when he executed his last will and testament? 4. Was there sufficient substantial, credible evidence to support the District Court's conclusion that Asmund Aageson was under the undue influence of Nan Nolkleberg, Eugene Aageson or their agents on September 5, 1980, when he executed his last will and testament? There is some question about whether a testator can be both incompetent and unduly influenced at the same time. Here the trial judge found this testator to be both incompetent and the subject of undue influence. Several cases have held that if you are incompetent then you cannot be the subject of undue influence as the latter presupposes testamentary capacity. For example see Johnson v. Shaver (S.D. 1919), 172 N.W. 676; Moore v. Horne (Tex.Civ.App. 1 9 4 0 ) , 136 S.W.2d 638. This view has been criticized by text writers. In T. Atkinson, Law of Wills (2d ed. 1953) at page -- 253, the author states: "At the outset it is important to notice language which is sometimes found to the effect that undue influence, fraud and mistake presume a mentally competent testator. It is true that if the testator is incompetent, the other elements may be considered immaterial, for his will is invalid for lack of testamentary capacity alone. However, many wills are contested both on the ground of incapacity and also because of undue influence, fraud, or mistake. It has been held that a will may be invalid for both mental incapacity and undue influence, and that the matters are so closely related that the courts will consider them together. These grounds are not mutually inconsistent in the sense that proof of one disproves the others." (Footnotes omitted) I t i s t r u e t h a t i f a t e s t a t o r i s incompetent t h a t should end t h e i n q u i r y . However, testamentary c a p a c i t y and undue i n f l u e n c e may be considered t o g e t h e r i n t h e s e n s e t h a t one who has a weak w i l l i s more s u b j e c t t o i n f l u e n c e . I n t h i s c a s e t h e evidence o f incompetency, s t a n d i n g a l o n e , i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g o f mental. i n c a p a c i t y . However, t h e evidence i s s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t t h e t e s t a t o r was mentally weak and h i g h l y s u g g e s t i b l e . T h i s , taken t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e evidence o f undue i n f l u e n c e , s u p p o r t s t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e was i n f a c t undue i n f l u e n c e exercised. Undue i n f l u e n c e is defined i n 5 28-2-407, MCA. "Undue i n f l u e n c e c o n s i s t s i n : " (1) t h e use by one i n whom a confidence i s reposed by a n o t h e r o r who holds a r e a l o r apparent a u t h o r i t y over him o f such confidence o r a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e purpose o f o b t a i n i n g an u n f a i r advantage over him; " ( 2 ) t a k i n g an u n f a i r advantage o f a n o t h e r ' s weakness o f mind; o r " (3) t a k i n g a g r o s s l y o p p r e s s i v e and u n f a i r advantage o f another' s n e c e s s i t i e s o r d i s t r e s s . " I n determining whether o r n o t undue i n f l u e n c e has been e x e r c i s e d on a t e s t a t o r making a w i l l , a c o u r t must c o n s i d e r : (1) . Confidentia 1 r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e person a t t e m p t i n g t o i n f l u e n c e t h e t e s t a t o r ; " ( 2 ) . The p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n o f t h e t e s t a t o r a s it a f f e c t s h i s a b i l i t y t o withstand t h e i n f l u e n c e ; " (3) . The mental condition o f t h e t e s t a - t o r a s it a f f e c t s h i s a b i l i t y t o with- stand t h e i n f l u e n c e ; " ( 4 ) . The unnaturalness o f t h e d i s p o s i - t i o n a s it r e l a t e s t o showing an unbal- anced mind o r a mind e a s i l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o undue i n f l u e n c e ; and " ( 5 ) . The demands and i m p o r t u n i t i e s a s t h e y may a f f e c t p a r t i c u l a r t e s t a t o r taking into consideration the time, the place, and all the surrounding circum- stances. " Blackmer v. Blackmer (1974) , 165 Mont. 69, 75, 525 P.2d 559, 562. Confidential Relationship Eugene and Nan en joyed a confidentia 1 relationship with their father. They were Asmund's children and he obviously cared deeply for them. His physical proximity to Nan encour- aged a close, confidential relationship. He spent every weekend with Nan and her family. He relied on Nan for com- panionship as well as for the provision of some of his needs. (2) Physical Condition Asmund's physical condition was such that he could not easily withstand any influence placed upon him. He was very hard of hearing, and therefore unable to comprehend the activities and meetings occurring around him. This was evidenced by the fact that he was unaware of the animosity between his children at the "meeting" on his 91st birthday. He was essentially confined to a nursing home, so unable to see for himself how the farm in Montana was progressing. Even when he allegedly told Arvin he wished to visit Montana in the fall of 1980, Nan prohibited him from doing so. His confinement also limited his ability to interact with his children concerning his financial matters or to view for himself how his children were reacting toward those matters. When he was approached by one of his children in the nursing home, he was forced to rely on whatever they said as he had no independent means of verifying the information. ( 3 Mental Condition Asmund's mental condition made him very s u s c e p t i b l e t o t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h o s e c l o s e t o him. H e s u f f e r e d from a b r a i n d i s o r d e r . S e v e r a l nursing home s t a f f members t e s t i f i e d t h a t Asmund's memory was n o t good, t h a t be s u f f e r e d day-to- day d i s o r i e n t a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t i m e , p l a c e and r e g u l a r a c t i v i t i e s . This l o s s o f memory and d i s o r i e n t a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n Asmund r e l y i n g on o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s f o r a l l h i s needs and information. It a l s o , according t o t h e n u r s e s a t t h e n u r s i n g home and D r . Randolph, l e f t him v e r y s u s c e p t i b l e t o sugges- t i o n and i n f l u e n c e . D r . Randolph's d e p o s i t i o n , which was videotaped and presented a t t r i a l i n l i e u o f D r . Randolph t e s t i f y i n g i n person, included t h e following: "Q (By M r . Moses) Let m e narrow it down i f I could. Around l a t e August and e a r l y September o f 1980-- "A Okay. "Q --while he was l i v i n g i n t h e Lutheran Home, M r . Aageson was l i v i n g i n t h e Lutheran Home, was he capable o f e n t e r i n g i n t o amendments t o l e a s e agreements, extending them, and t h a t s o r t o f t h i n g ? "A - I would imagine he was capable o f it -- -- on suggestion, b u t o t h e r than t h a t I - - - - c a n ' t s a v t h a t he would be. o f h i s v o l i - L t i o n would do it, b u t t h G 170- know. - - --- " Q But he d i d understand t h e s e t h i n g s a s t h e y were explained t o him? "A I t h i n k he coul~d. " Q Sure. And he could v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r i n t o t h e s e i f he understood them? "A Yes, i f t h e y w e r e explained, I t h i n k he could understand them. "Q And t h e same would be t r u e o f a w i l l , and t h i s would be about t h e t i m e o f August 29 t o September 5 o f 1980? "A Yes, I t h i n k he could probably." (emphasis s u p p l i e d ) Dep. Tr. a t p. 15. We a l s o quote t h e following e x c e r p t from t h e testimony o f David Fagerly, t h e D i r e c t o r o f t h e Department o f S o c i a l S e r v i c e s a t t h e Tacoma Lutheran Home: "Q A t t h e l a s t h e a r i n g held i n November o f 1983, you t e s t i f i e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t you thought t h a t M r . Aageson was extreme- Ly s u b j e c t t o suggestion or i n f l u e n c e o f t h e l a s t person t h a t he t a l k e d t o , i s t h a t c o r r e c t ? "A Yes, p r e t t y much, y e s , I would say p a r t i c u l a r l y someone t h a t he knew; maybe w i t h a complete s t r a n g e r , maybe n o t q u i t e a s f l e x i b l e , b u t very prone s t i l l t o i n f l u e n c e . "Q Very prone t o i n f l u e n c e ? "A Extremely, yes. "Q I f someone was t o come t o him l i k e a - ------- son o r a daughter, o r a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f - - - - - - - - - - t h a t son o r daughter, would h e be i n - - - - - - - ~ l i n e d t o l i s t e n t o them and be subiected d ---- t o i n f l u e n c e & them? - "A Y e s i f he believed t h e y i n f a c t - - r e p r e s e n t e d t r e i n t e r e s t s - - - - o f h i s son o r daughter, - I b e l i e v e he would." (emphasis supplied) (Tr. o f O c t o b e r 22 and 23, 1984, a t pp. 243-244) Unnaturalness o f D i s p o s i t i o n A s i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e f a c t s set f o r t h a t t h e beginning of t h i s opinion, every a c t i o n by Asmund s i n c e 1948 was d i - r e c t e d toward p r o t e c t i n g Arvin's i n t e r e s t i n t h e family farm. Therefore, t h e 1980 w i l l s d i s i n h e r i t i n g Arvin and h i s sons a r e completely u n n a t u r a l . Demands on Asmund Given Surrounding Circumstances Eugene, Nan and Lorraine w e r e shocked and g r e a t l y u p s e t when t h e y learned of A r v i n ' s o p t i o n t o purchase t h e i r i n t e r - e s t i n t h e family farm upon t h e i r f a t h e r ' s death. Nan ob- t a i n e d a lawyer f o r h e r f a t h e r , t h u s encouraging a change i n h i s testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n . Eugene hampered t h e i n h e r i t a n c e by Arvin o f h i s m o t h e r ' s 480 a c r e s by r e f u s i n g t o s i g n t h e f i n a l p a p e r s r e q u i r e d t o p r o b a t e h e r w i l l . A f t e r Asmund's d e a t h , Nan and Eugene a t t e m p t e d t o u s e t h e 1980 w i l l s a s a n e g o t i a t i n g i n s t r u m e n t t o p r e v e n t Arvin from e x e r c i s i n g h i s o p t i o n . I t i s c l e a r from t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d t h a t Asmund was t h e v i c t i m o f demands by h i s c h i l d r e n t o d i s p o s e o f h i s farm i n t h e manner t h e y b e l i e v e d b e s t . There i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t a l l f i v e f a c t o r s t o b e c o n s i d e r e d when d e t e r m i n i n g whether o r n o t a t e s t a t o r was unduly i n f l u e n c e d a t t h e t i m e he made h i s w i l l a r e p r e s e n t i n t h i s i n s t a n c e . The o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s a f f i r m e d . FJe concur: /