Title: MATTER OF LATRAY
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 14669
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: August 13, 1979

No. 14669 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GRACE LaTRAY Appeal from: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Honorable 'r , Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Robert L.Stephens, Jr., Billings, Montana For Respondent: Robert L. Johnson, Lewistown, Montana - Submitted on briefs: June 29, 1979 Decided: 1 3 1 9 7 9 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. his is an appeal by t h e c o n t e s t a n t s of a w i l l of Grace LaTray from two i n t e r r e l a t e d o r d e r s of t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Fergus County, t h e Honorable Ronald D. McPhillips presiding. Appellants o b j e c t t o find- i n g s of f a c t , conclusions o f law and an o r d e r d e c l a r i n g t h a t t h e deceased w a s competent and executed a v a l i d w i l l on November 26, 1977, naming Travis Jaynes as h e r personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . They a l s o o b j e c t t o a second o r d e r appoint- i n g Travis Jaynes a s successor personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n t h e e s t a t e of J o e LaTray, Grace LaTray's deceased husband, f o r t h e e s t a t e of whom s h e was personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e up u n t i l h e r death. Grace LaTray, a l i f e t i m e r e s i d e n t of Fergus County, d i e d i n Lewistown, Montana, on January 16, 1978, a t t h e age of 79. H e r husband, J o e LaTray, had d i e d t h e previous y e a r , and a t t h e time of h e r d e a t h Grace LaTray was serving a s personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of h e r husband's e s t a t e . Decedent was survived by t h r e e n a t u r a l c h i l d r e n : Leonard LaTray, L e s l i e LaTray and Thelma LaTray Fordyce, a p p e l l a n t s herein. I n a d d i t i o n t o h e r t h r e e n a t u r a l c h i l - dren, t h e r e were s i x orphaned c h i l d r e n of two deceased daughters, a l l of whom s h e and h e r deceased husband had l e g a l l y adopted. The adopted grandchildren a r e Kenneth Putro, Judy P u t r o Wells, Travis Jaynes (respondent h e r e i n ) , Deanna (Jaynes) Vogl, Eddie Jaynes and Vanessa Dawn Jaynes. During t h e l a s t y e a r s of her l i f e decedent was chron- i c a l l y ill, having s u f f e r e d from a number of d i f f e r e n t p h y s i c a l ailments including a severe s t r o k e s u f f e r e d on September 1 4 , 1977, which r e s u l t e d i n p a r a l y s i s of h e r l e f t s i d e . By ~ c t o b e r 5, 1977, her c o n d i t i o n had s t a b i l i z e d , and s h e w a s t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e C e n t r a l Montana Nursing Home i n ~ e w i s t o w n . Subsequently, on October 11, 1977, a t t h e re- q u e s t of family members, decedent w a s t r a n s f e r r e d t o Colum- bus H o s p i t a l i n G r e a t F a l l s f o r f u r t h e r i n t e n s i v e p h y s i c a l therapy. She remained a t Columbus H o s p i t a l u n t i l November 3 , 1977, when s h e was t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e C e n t r a l Montana H o s p i t a l a t Lewistown, Montana. Decedent remained hospi- t a l i z e d i n Lewistown u n t i l t h e t i m e of her death. The w i l l i n q u e s t i o n was executed by t h e decedent on November 26, 1977, i n h e r h o s p i t a l room. I t was witnessed by Charles B. Vogl, t h e f u t u r e husband of one of t h e dece- d e n t ' s adopted grandchildren, Nancy A. Ridgeway, one of t h e h o s p i t a l nurses, and Robert L. Johnson, t h e a t t o r n e y of decedent and now f o r T r a v i s Jaynes, respondent h e r e i n . On January 25, 1978, t h e w i l l was f i l e d f o r p r o b a t e by respondent, t h e p r i n c i p a l b e n e f i c i a r y and named p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e thereunder. O n February 10, 1978, a p p e l l a n t s brought t h i s a c t i o n t o c o n t e s t t h e w i l l based upon t h e ground of l a c k of testamentary c a p a c i t y . The m a t t e r was t r i e d before t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g without a jury on August 28, 1978. On October 25, 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , conclusions of law and o r d e r a d m i t t i n g t h e w i l l t o probate. I t i s from t h e s e f i n d i n g s , conclusions and o r d e r t h a t c o n t e s t a n t s appeal. Evidence presented a t t h e w i l l c o n t e s t included testi- mony from decedent's a t t e n d i n g physician, D r . E. ~ o n n a l l Thomas, who t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n t h e weeks preceding t h e exe- c u t i o n decedent was incapable of a b s t r a c t c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and t h a t she was prone t o confusion and d i s o r i e n t a t i o n i n d e a l i n g with her business a f f a i r s . Thomas i n d i c a t e d , how- ever, t h a t decedent's condition was improving, and he char- a c t e r i z e d h e r mental a t t i t u d e a s "cheerful" and " a l e r t " on November 16, 1977, only t e n days before t h e execution of t h e w i l l . There was a l s o testimony of t h e c o n t e s t a n t s h e r e i n i n d i c a t i n g t h a t on t h e i r v i s i t s with decedent i n t h e hos- p i t a l they found her t o be d i s o r i e n t e d and behaving i n an e r r a t i c and inappropriate manner. The witnesses t o t h e w i l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h e time of execution decedent named her r e l a t i v e s , knew t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t of h e r property and understood how she w a s disposing of it. Testimony by one of decedent's adopted daughters, Judy Wells, concerning t h e circumstances surrounding t h e execution of t h e w i l l was corroborative of t h e a t t e s t i n g witnesses' testimony. The s o l e i s s u e presented on appeal i s whether t h e r e was 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 find- i n g s and conclusions of t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t decedent w a s competent a t t h e t i m e of t h e execution of t h e w i l l i n question. O n appeal t h i s Court's review is l i m i t e d t o whether t h e r e i s 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 judgment. Big Sky Livestock, Inc. v. Herzog (1976), 171 Mont. 409, 4 1 4 , 558 P.2d 1107, 1 1 1 0 . "We review t h e evidence i n a l i g h t most favorable t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , and w e w i l l r e v e r s e only when t h e r e i s a l a c k of s u b s t a n t i a l evidence introduced t o sup- p o r t t h e r e s u l t s . " Matter of E s t a t e of Holm (1979), - Mont. , 588 P.2d 531, 534, 36 St.Rep. 11, 1 4 . " ' S u b s t a n t i a l evidence' i s evidence such ' a s w i l l convince reasonable men and on which such men may n o t reasonably d i f f e r a s t o whether it e s t a b l i s h e s t h e [ p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ' s ] c a s e . . . The evidence may be i n h e r e n t l y weak and s t i l l be deemed ' s u b s t a n t i a l ' and s u b s t a n t i a l evi- dence may c o n f l i c t with o t h e r evidence pre- sented." Cameron v. Cameron (1978), p Mont. , 587 P.2d 939, 944, 945, 35 St.Rep. 1723, - 1729. Respondent presented testimony from t h e a t t e s t i n g witnesses of t h e w i l l i n question. A l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t decedent, i n responding t o questions a t t h e t i m e of execu- t i o n , named a l l her r e l a t i v e s , t h e nature and e x t e n t of her property, and t h a t she understood how she was disposing of it. This testimony was corroborated by Judy Wells, an adopted c h i l d of decedent, who was p r e s e n t during t h e pre- execution interview. Though decedent s u f f e r e d from various physical ailments and a t t i m e s exhibited s i g n s of confusion and d i s o r i e n t a t i o n , t h e above evidence i n d i c a t e d she was n o t confused o r d i s - o r i e n t e d on t h e day she executed t h e w i l l . The evidence a l s o indicated t h a t t h e contested w i l l i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r t o an e a r l i e r d r a f t made i n 1974 when t h e r e was no question of competency. W e f i n d t h i s evidence meets t h e requirements of substan- t i a l i t y and i s s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e conclusions and o r d e r s of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. / J u s t i c e W e concur: I Chief J u s t i c e I WfLIL u s t i c e s f2~~S-y