Title: ESTATE OF COX
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 80-072
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: December 24, 1980

No. 80-72 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MABEL I. COX Appeal from: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Fergus. Honorable LeRoy McKinnon, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Parrish, Knopp and O'Hare, Lewistown, Montana Bradley Parrish argued, Lewistown, Montana For Respondent: William Berger argued, Lewistown, Montana Submitted: November 20, 1980 Decided: BEc 2 4 1980 Filed: E C 2 4 l$o$ Mr. J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. A p p e l l a n t , Raymond Cox a p p e a l s from an o r d e r of t h e T e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , F e r g u s C o u n t y , a d m i t t i n g t h e h o l o g r a p h i c w i l l of Mabel I. Cox t o p r o b a t e . The d e t e r m i n a t i v e q u e s t i o n is whether a w i l l , b e a r i n g unexplained markings through its t e x t when d i s c o v e r e d , has been revoked by c a n c e l l a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 72-2-321, MCA. W e hold t h a t such a w i l l s h a l l be presumed canceled by t h e t e s t a t o r w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o revoke, u n l e s s proven o t h e r w i s e . Mabel Cox d i e d on May 1 6 , 1979, l e a v i n g s i x c h i l d r e n a s s u r v i v o r s . The d e c e d e n t ' s h o l o g r a p h i c w i l l was found i n her bedroom n i g h t s t a n d t h e f o l l o w i n g day by respondent Richard Cox, proponent of t h e w i l l . The w i l l i s w r i t t e n e n t i r e l y i n d e c e d e n t ' s h a n d w r i t i n g w i t h two d i f f e r e n t - c o l o r e d i n k s , on a s i n g l e page of notebook p a p e r . I t is s i g n e d and d a t e d May 30, 1973. The w i l l c o n s i s t s of seven p a r a g r a p h s l i s t e d down t h e page, p l u s an e i g h t h paragraph s l a n t e d i n t h e lower right-hand c o r n e r . E i g h t l a r g e X ' s have been drawn on t h e s h e e t such t h a t a l l p a r a g r a p h s e x c e p t t h e s l a n t e d w r i t i n g have markings through them o r p a r t i a l l y through them. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e words "Will and Testamony" ( s i c ) which begin t h e w i l l have been l i n e d o u t t h r e e times. Thus, t h e w i l l a p p e a r s a s follows: I f ' y v - - - , - . - - -- - C ---I I 7 7 i t , i $ - i .L-i_-q ,f Y ~ - - J / -: (7 i ' i I Y.7'3 4, J'VtL:: ;\ Sq 1:; , f 2 - " i . i c - - - I: kpg; 1 1 '/GU-$ r . -- L . b . I/C L Gc * . - 4 ~ ' a k 4 J d A ? ~~~~9~~ The p r i n c i p a l a s s e t of t h e Cox e s t a t e i s d e c e d e n t ' s home, which would p a s s under t h e w i l l t o Richard Cox. Other a s s e t s i n c l u d e c e r t i f i c a t e s of d e p o s i t valued a t approximately $2,500 a p i e c e , one h e l d i n j o i n t tenancy between decedent and each c h i l d e x c e p t Richard; and household f u r n i s h i n g s which would p a s s v a r i o u s l y t o a l l s i x c h i l d r e n under t h e w i l l . On June 11, 1979, Raymond Cox p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r an a d j u d i c a t i o n of i n t e s t a c y and appointment of a p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e . T h e r e a f t e r , Richard Cox p e t i t i o n e d t h e c o u r t f o r formal p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l . The p e t i t i o n s were c o n s o l i d a t e d f o r h e a r i n g . N e i t h e r p a r t y p r e s e n t e d evidence a t t h e h e a r i n g which e x p l a i n e d t h e o r i g i n of t h e markings. The e v i d e n c e was a l s o i n c o n c l u s i v e a s t o d e c e d e n t ' s i n t e n d e d d i s p o s i t i o n o f h e r e s t a t e . T e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e d t h a t d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d s h o r t l y preceding her d e a t h , decedent had i n d i c a t e d t h a t s h e wished t o t r e a t a l l c h i l d r e n e q u a l l y , and t h a t s h e wished Richard t o r e c e i v e t h e house. S i n c e t h e home comprised t h e l a r g e s t p o r t i o n o f t h e e s t a t e , t h e s e e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t i o n s were m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h e r e was no e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e X ' s on t h e w i l l . Based on t h i s f i n d i n g , t h e c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e was no s u f f i c i e n t proof of an i n t e n t t o revoke t h e w i l l , and g r a n t e d t h e p e t i t i o n f o r formal p r o b a t e . Opponents of t h e w i l l appeal. A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n concluding, based on t h e f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e r e was no proof on t h e record e x p l a i n i n g t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e markings, t h a t t h e r e e x i s t e d no s u f f i c i e n t proof of an i n t e n t t o revoke t h e w i l l . The c o r r e c t approach, a p p e l l a n t submits, is t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e markings on a w i l l d i s c o v e r e d i n t h e custody of a decedent should g i v e r i s e t o a presumption t h a t t h e a c t s of m u t i l a t i o n were peformed by t h e t e s t a t o r w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n t o revoke. I n r e Kernper's E s t a t e ( 1 9 4 4 ) , 157 Kan. 727, 145 P.2d 103. W e a g r e e . The e v i d e n t i a r y burdens f o r w i l l c o n t e s t s a r e p r e s c r i b e d by s e c t i o n 72-3-310, MCA: ". . . Proponents of a w i l l have t h e b u r d e n of e s t a b l i s h i n g p r i m a f a c i e proof of due e x e c u t i o n i n a l l c a s e s a n d , i f t h e y a r e a l s o p e t i t i o n e r s , prima f a c i e proof of d e a t h and venue. C o n t e s t a n t s of a w i l l have t h e burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g l a c k of t e s t a m e n t a r y i n t e n t or c a p a c i t y , undue i n f l u e n c e , f r a u d , d u r e s s , m i s t a k e , o r r e v o c a t i o n . P a r t i e s have t h e u l t i m a t e burden of p e r s u a s i o n a s t o m a t t e r s w i t h r e s p e c t t o which t h e y have t h e i n i t i a l burden of p r o o f . " T h i s procedure is e s s e n t i a l l y a c o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e common law. See, I n r e C o l b e r t ' s E s t a t e ( 1 9 0 4 ) , 3 1 972. Mont. 461, 466, 78 P. 971,/ There i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t p r o p o n e n t ' s i n i t i a l burden h a s been met. The f o c a l p o i n t of t h e c a s e is t h e c o n t e s t a n t ' s burden t o prove r e v o c a t i o n . Revocation by a c t may be e f f e c t e d o n l y p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 72-2-321(2), MCA: "A w i l l o r any p a r t t h e r e o f is revoked: . . . ( 2 ) by being burned, t o r n , c a n c e l e d , o b l i t e r a t e d , o r d e s t r o y e d w i t h t h e i n t e n t and f o r t h e purpose of revoking it by t h e t e s t a t o r or by a n o t h e r person i n h i s p r e s e n c e and by h i s d i r e c t i o n . " C l e a r l y , t h e a c t s o f c a n c e l l a t i o n h e r e a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o revoke a w i l l , a l t h o u g h t h e w r i t i n g r e m a i n s l e g i b l e and t h e s i g n a t u r e h a s n o t b e e n o b l i t e r a t e d . I n t e n t t o revoke is t h e c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r , r a t h e r t h a n t h e s e v e r i t y of t h e a c t which m a n i f e s t s t h a t i n t e n t . The form and e x t e n t of t h e a c t s a r e t h e n unimportant a s long a s t h e y c o n s t i t u t e a p h y s i c a l token of t h e i n t e n t t o revoke. Kemper, 145 P.2d a t 108. T h i s is a c a s e of f i r s t impression i n s o f a r a s it a d d r e s s e s t h e q u e s t i o n of presumed i n t e n t w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t of a canceled w i l l . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h i s Court has p r e v i o u s l y considered t h e same q u e s t i o n w i t h i n t h e d e s t r o y e d / l o s t w i l l c o n t e x t . Matter of E s t a t e of Hartman ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 225, 563 P.2d 569. Revocation by e i t h e r d e s t r u c t i o n o r c a n c e l l a t i o n is governed by s e c t i o n 72-2-321, MCA. The two means of r e v o c a t i o n d i f f e r , i n e f f e c t , o n l y a s a m a t t e r of d e g r e e ; and w e f i n d t h e r a t i o n a l e o f Hartman c o n t r o l l i n g i n t h i s c l o s e l y analogous s i t u a t i o n . W e t h e r e f o r e hold t h a t where a w i l l h a s been i n t h e c u s t o d y of t h e t e s t a t o r and is d i s c o v e r e d among her e f f e c t s i n a c a n c e l e d o r d e f a c e d c o n d i t i o n , t h e t e s t a t o r s h a l l be presumed t o have done t h e a c t w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o revoke. Hartman, s u p r a ; Atkinson, W i l l s 5 101, a t 554. Page, The Law of W i l l s § 29.140 a t 700- 01. A w i l l c o n t e s t a n t may, i n t h i s and o t h e r s i m i l a r i n s t a n c e s , u t i l i z e t h i s r e b u t t a b l e presumption i n m e e t i n g h i s b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g r e v o c a t i o n . The proponent then h a s t h e burden of going forward w i t h s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o r e b u t t h e presumption. Hartman, 563 P.2d a t 574. P r o p o n e n t , a t a r g u m e n t , e m p h a s i z e d t h r e e opponents' momentary p o s s i b l e a c c e s s t o t h e w i l l and o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e s t r o y it on t h e evening of Mrs. Cox' decease. However, t h e f a c t t h a t t h e w i l l c o n t e s t a n t s had a f l e e t i n g o p p o r t u n i t y t o tamper w i t h t h e w i l l does n o t , of i t s e l f , overcome t h e presumption; b u t , r a t h e r is a circumstance which must be c o n s i d e r e d w i t h o t h e r proof. Matter of T r a v e r s ' E s t a t e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 121 A r i z . 282, 589 P.2d 1314. Here t h e D i s t r i c t Court determined t h e r e was no e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e markings. P r o p o n e n t ' s c o n j e c t u r e r e g a r d i n g t h e o r i g i n of t h e markings a s i d e , t h e f i n d i n g is n o t a c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s e v a l u a t i o n of t h e record and may n o t be s e t a s i d e . Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. The presumed r e v o c a t i o n , s t a n d i n g u n r e b u t t e d , t h e r e f o r e c o n t r o l s . Proponent f i n a l l y submits t h a t i f t h e w i l l is deemed revoked, it should be admitted t o p r o b a t e under t h e d o c t r i n e of dependent r e l a t i v e r e v o c a t i o n . Under t h e r u l e s s e t f o r t h i n Matter of E s t a t e of P a t t e n (1978) , Mont . , 587 P.2d 1307, 35 St.Rep. 1983, t h a t d o c t r i n e c l e a r l y cannot a p p l y h e r e , where t h e r e is no superseding w i l l and no evidence of any i n t e n t t o e x e c u t e one. T h i s Court has n o t y e t s p e c i f i c a l l y adopted t h e d o c t r i n e of dependent r e l a t i v e r e v o c a t i o n i n a c a s e r e q u i r i n g t h a t c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A u t h o r i t i e s i n d i c a t e , however, t h a t d e p e n d e n t r e l a t i v e r e v o c a t i o n o n l y a p p l i e s where t h e r e is a c l e a r i n t e n t of t h e t e s t a t o r t h a t t h e r e v o c a t i o n of an o l d w i l l be c o n d i t i o n a l upon t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e new w i l l . The c o n d i t i o n must be proven by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence of p r o b a t i v e v a l u e , and evidence of t h e i n t e n t cannot be l e f t t o s p e c u l a t i o n , s u p p o s i t i o n , c o n j e c t u r e o r p o s s i b i l i t y . F u r t h e r , t h e r e must be an immediate i n t e n t t o make a new w i l l , and t h e new w i l l must be executed c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h o r s h o r t l y a f t e r d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e o l d . P a t t e n , 587 P.2d a t 1309. None of t h e s e c r i t e r i a have been e s t a b l i s h e d . Reversed and remanded with i n s t r u c t i o n s t o g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a d j u d i c a t i o n of i n t e s t a c y and t o deny t h e p e t i t i o n f o r formal p r o b a t e . W e Concur: Chief J u s t i c e J u s t i c e s /