Title: Baker University v. KSC of Pittsburg
Citation: 222 Kan. 245, 564 P.2d 472
Docket Number: 48,154
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: May 14, 1977

222 Kan. 245 (1977)
564 P.2d 472
TRUSTEES OF BAKER UNIVERSITY, Appellants,
v.
TRUSTEES OF THE ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION OF KANSAS STATE COLLEGE OF PITTSBURG, PITTSBURG, KANSAS, Appellees.
No. 48,154

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 14, 1977.
J. Michael Haskin, of Olathe, argued the cause, and Harley V. Haskin, of Olathe, was on the brief for the appellants.
Garry W. Lassman, of Wilbert, Lassman, Toburen &amp; Wachter, of Pittsburg, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
KAUL, J.:
This litigation stems from probate proceedings in the estate of Esme Cellars, deceased, in the probate court of Labette County. The issue presented is whether a gift made by the *246 deceased in her lifetime to appellees took the place of and adeemed by satisfaction a bequest to appellees contained in the Last Will and Testament of deceased.
For convenience the appellants will sometimes be referred to as Baker and the appellees as Pittsburg.
Esme Cellars and her brother, S.R. Cellars, neither of whom was married, lived together for many years at Chetopa in Labette County. On December 18, 1965, each made and executed a will prepared by their attorney, John F. Amos, of Oswego. The wills were reciprocal in that each left all of his or her property to the other if the other survived, and in case the other did not survive the testator or testatrix, then each devised the same farm to their cousin George Tullis, each bequeathed the sum of $20,000.00 to Pittsburg for the establishment of a scholarship fund, and each devised and bequeathed the residue of their respective estates to Baker.
S.R. Cellars, sometimes referred to as Roscoe by the witnesses, died on March 15, 1971, predeceasing Esme. Since their property was held jointly Roscoe's will was not probated. Sometime after Roscoe's death Esme advised her attorney, Mr. Amos, that she had decided to convey the farm to her cousin, George Tullis. The farm in question was devised to Mr. Tullis in item (a) of the third paragraph of each of the two wills. At the same time she also advised Mr. Amos that she desired to establish a scholarship fund at Pittsburg during her lifetime as she and her brother Roscoe had expressed in their wills. As directed by Esme, Mr. Amos prepared a deed for conveyance of the farm to George Tullis and made inquiry about the procedure for establishing a scholarship fund at Pittsburg. The deed to George Tullis was executed by Esme on February 3, 1972, completing the gift of the farm. Mr. Amos testified that in connection with the scholarship fund, Esme stated that she desired to establish the fund in the amount of $40,000.00 to carry out the plan expressed in her will and the will of her brother. After correspondence with Clifford E. Beougher, business manager of Pittsburg, and secretary-treasurer of the Endowment Association of the College, Mr. Amos prepared a document for the establishment of a scholarship fund at Pittsburg, which was approved by the Endowment Association, and at presentation ceremonies held at her home on September 13, 1972, the scholarship document was executed by Esme and the president of the Endowment Association.
*247 Four months after the presentation ceremonies, Esme died on January 5, 1973. In due course her 1965 will was admitted to probate and in the course of the proceedings George Tullis, executor, filed a petition for instructions alleging the facts concerning the gift to Pittsburg and asking the court to determine whether the $20,000.00 bequest should be paid to Pittsburg.
Pittsburg filed an answer to the executor's petition for instructions alleging in substance that the $20,000.00 will bequest and the $40,000.00 inter vivos gift to the Endowment Association were two separate and distinct funds and moved the court to dismiss the petition for instructions and to order the executor to forthwith comply with the will.
Baker also filed an answer alleging in pertinent part:
Baker moved the court to hear the evidence as to the facts and the intent of Esme and for an order determining that the bequest to Pittsburg in Esme's will had been adeemed by satisfaction, and, therefore, is null and void and that the executor be instructed to proceed accordingly.
After hearing extensive evidence the probate court made comprehensive findings and concluded that the evidence clearly showed it was decedent's intention and purpose in establishing the scholarship fund at Pittsburg in her lifetime that it should take the place of and carry out the plan which she and her brother had made and expressed in their wills for the establishment of such scholarship fund at Pittsburg; and further, that it was not decedent's intention that having established such scholarship fund in her lifetime that Pittsburg would receive additionally the $20,000.00 bequeathed for such purpose by her will; and that it was her intent and purpose to execute a new will eliminating the devise to George Tullis and the bequest to Pittsburg and leaving her entire estate to Baker. This last finding was based on testimony of Mr. Amos that at Esme's direction, following the presentation ceremonies, he prepared a will eliminating the devise *248 and bequest referred to, but that Esme died without executing the new will. The testimony of Mr. Amos concerning this matter will be discussed later in the opinion.
Pittsburg appealed to the district court. After a trial de novo the district court ruled contrary to the decision of the probate court as follows:
Following the district court's ruling this appeal was perfected.
On appeal Baker claims the erroneous exclusion of evidence in several instances; that the district court failed to recognize and apply principles of law applicable to the issue presented; and further that the district court failed to make factual findings and legal conclusions in compliance with K.S.A. 60-252(a) and Rule No. 116 of this court (214 Kan. xxxvii) [now Rule No. 165].
Before discussing applicable principles of law it is necessary to set out the language of the bequest in question and that of the endowment fund inter vivos gift. The bequest to Pittsburg appears as item (b) of the third paragraph of the will which reads:
The bequest to Baker, which follows in item (c), is written in essentially the same language except that it bequeathed the residue of the deceased's property.
The document establishing the scholarship fund by an inter vivos gift reads:
"Dated this 13th day of September, 1972.
In their brief on appeal appellants first contend the conclusions of the district court were contrary to the applicable law of ademption by satisfaction. Their arguments are made under two headings:
The general concept of the doctrine of ademption has been recognized and applied in this jurisdiction for many years. (Taylor v. Hull, 121 Kan. 102, 245 Pac. 1026.) However, an examination of our cases dealing with the doctrine reveals no decision in which this court has actually relied upon the specific doctrine of ademption by satisfaction upon which appellants rely herein. Although this is the first appearance of the specific doctrine before this court, it is well-grounded in the common law and has been recognized by many sister jurisdictions. (6 Page on Wills [Bowe-Parker Revision], Ademption, Sec. 54.21, p. 277; Atkinson on Wills [2d Ed.], Satisfaction, Sec. 133, p. 737; 96 C.J.S., Wills, Sec. 1172, p. 985; 80 Am.Jur.2d, Wills, Sec. 1719, p. 776; 26 A.L.R.2d, Anno., General Legacy-Ademption by Payment, Sec. 3, p. 18.)
Although the terms "advancements" or "advances" were employed rather than ademption, the analogous equitable principles underlying advancements and ademption by satisfaction were considered in depth in the case of In re Estate of Bush, 155 Kan. 556, 127 P.2d 455. Bush involved a testate estate wherein the testator, in his lifetime, but subsequent to the making of his will, made gifts which were spoken of as advancements to a son named as a beneficiary in the will. The arguments presented and the conclusion of the court were stated by Mr. Justice Hoch in these words:
As may be seen the equitable principles underlying ademption by satisfaction were actually employed in Bush, although the term "advancement" was used. While "advancement," strictly speaking, applies only to intestate estates, the two terms are often used in analogous concepts in discussions of ademption by satisfaction. (See 80 Am.Jur.2d, Wills, Sec. 1719, pp. 776-777.)
The later case of In re Estate of Snyder, 199 Kan. 487, 430 P.2d 212, involved ademption by extinction; however, in discussing the general principles involved in the doctrine of ademption we quoted, with approval, language from 6 Page on Wills (Bowe-Parker Revision), Ademption, Sec. 54.1:
If what was said in Bush and Snyder does not constitute a clear recognition of the doctrine of ademption by satisfaction, we do so now. We believe the similarity in the equitable principles underlying both ademption by extinction and satisfaction compels *252 recognition of the latter to avoid inconsistency. The satisfaction doctrine is recognized by a majority of English and American jurisdictions. (See 26 A.L.R.2d, Anno. p. 9, and Later Case Service and Supplement.)
Appellees present two arguments against the recognition of ademption by satisfaction. First that it had not been recognized in any Kansas case and second that the doctrine of ademption has been abolished by statute.
While, as we have pointed out, the specific terms were not used in Bush, the language of the opinion, in effect, recognized the principles of ademption by satisfaction. In their statutory argument appellees rely on K.S.A. 59-611 which provides:
Appellees point out that prior to 1939 the predecessor of K.S.A. 59-611, G.S. 1935, 22-241, ended with the proviso:
It is further pointed out that the 1939 revision omitted this proviso. Thus, appellees argue, this omission evinces a legislative intent to preclude application of the doctrine of ademption by satisfaction. The omission of the proviso is explained by the note following the statute  Judicial Council, 1939:
This statement shows that the reason for the omission of the proviso was the addition of 59-611, which deals with the automatic revocation of a will by marriage, birth, adoption or divorce, and that the rules of ademption then in force by way of case law dispensed with any need for statutory provision in that regard.
Appellees' argument has been rejected by courts as well as text writers. The following appears in 96 C.J.S., Wills, Sec. 1178:
In Atkinson on Wills (2d Ed.), Satisfaction, Sec. 133, the author observes:
It is a fundamental rule in this jurisdiction that a will speaks from the date of the testator's death in the absence of a clear intention to the contrary. (In re State of Snyder, supra; and In re Estate of Zimmerman, 207 Kan. 354, 485 P.2d 215.) In the case of ademption, the act of extinction or satisfaction is, of course, antecedent to the death of testator. We see no bar, in the language of 59-611, to the application of the doctrine of ademption by satisfaction where it is otherwise shown to be applicable.
In passing, we note that the Uniform Probate Code, which has not been adopted in Kansas, requires a direction in the will or by a collateral document written by the testator or an acknowledgement of satisfaction in writing by the legatee in order that a payment work an ademption (See 1 Uniform Probate Code Practice Manual, Sec. 2-612, pp. 153-154).
Authorities on the subject indicate that the intention of the testator at the time of the inter vivos gift is the heart of ademption by satisfaction. (6 Page on Wills [Bowe-Parker Revision], Ademption, Sec. 54.25, p. 282; 96 C.J.S., Wills, Sec. 1178, p. 1009.) The importance of intention, as related to ademption, is made clear in our opinion in the recent case of In re Estate of Graham, 216 Kan. 770, 533 P.2d 1318. The Graham case dealt with ademption by extinction, the issue being whether a conveyance, by an attorney in fact for an incompetent testator's specifically devised real property worked an ademption. In the context presented on appeal we were confronted with the choice of applying the identity theory with respect to ademption by extinction or the intention theory. In holding the intention theory to be paramount in such a case, Mr. Justice Prager speaking for the court said:
We believe the intention of Esme at the time she made the inter vivos gift to Pittsburg is the critical issue at bar. In its decision the trial court emphasized that both the gift document and the decedent's will are clear and unambiguous. These rulings are irrelevant to the controlling issue of intention. A reading of the court's decision and its various evidentiary rulings during the course of the trial indicates the court may have viewed the action as one to construe a will or to determine whether either the will or gift document was ambiguous. Neither approach was determinative of the issue here. The fact that both instruments are clear and unambiguous does not proscribe ademption by satisfaction the determination of which is primarily controlled by intention.
The decision of the district court fails to meet the standards of K.S.A. 60-252(a) and Rule No. 165. The court's decision does not state the controlling facts or the legal principles controlling the decision. We cannot ascertain from the language of its ruling whether the court recognized the doctrine of ademption by satisfaction and found against appellants on the issue of intention or whether it ignored the doctrine and based its ruling on the premise that both instruments were clear and unambiguous. For this reason alone the case must be remanded. In this connection we held the requirements of the statute and rule to be mandatory in the recent case of Mies v. Mies, 217 Kan. 269, 535 P.2d 432, and further held:
In view of a retrial of this matter we deem it appropriate to consider recognized rules applicable to the application of the doctrine in the context of the record presented here. Ordinarily, the burden of proof as to the testator's intention falls on the party who claims that a payment operates as an ademption of a legacy. *255 (6 Page on Wills [Bowe-Parker Revision], Ademption, Sec. 54.26, p. 282.) A gift will not be treated as satisfaction when an actual intention that it should not so operate is sufficiently made to appear. Conversely, where an actual intention shows, by competent evidence, that a subsequent gift is to satisfy a legacy, such intention will be enforced. (96 C.J.S., Wills, Sec. 1178, p. 1009.) There are recognized presumptions in connection with intention which may arise from the evidence. One of which, and pertinent to this case, is a presumption of ademption where the specific purpose for which the legacy was given is satisfied by the testator himself. (96 C.J.S., Wills, Sec. 1178, p. 1010; 6 Page on Wills [Bowe-Parker Revision], Ademption, Sec. 54.31, p. 290.) However, where a presumption of an intention to adeem arises it is one of fact and not of law and may be rebutted by competent evidence. The question is one for the trier of facts. In the case at bar, the overall purpose (to provide scholarships for worthy or needy and deserving students) is spelled out in both of the instruments in question in almost identical language, although there is some difference in directions as to precisely how the funds are to be handled by the appellees. There is some conflicting testimony on this point that one document set out a scholarship "gift" fund, whereas the other spoke of a scholarship "loan" fund and that there was some difference in the administration of the two funds. On the other hand, Mr. Amos testified that the testatrix did not want or intend any material differences between the two documents. Appellees argue the differences are significant while appellants, on the other hand, contend the identity of purpose in the two instruments is clearly shown. This is a question to be determined by the trial court after hearing the testimony of the witnesses.
We turn next to appellants' claim of error with respect to the trial court's rulings on the admission of evidence. Appellants' first complaint concerns the trial court's refusal to permit Mr. Amos to testify concerning decedent's intention in making the inter vivos gift to Pittsburg. In sustaining an objection the court ruled that Mr. Amos "had already testified to this matter." Our review of the record reveals that this subject had not been explored during the testimony of this witness. Appellants also complain as to the exclusion of the testimony of various witnesses concerning the intention of decedent in making a new will after *256 the presentation of the inter vivos gift and that it contained no provision for George Tullis or Pittsburg. The trial court erred in both instances. The intention of a testator as to whether a gift should satisfy or adeem a legacy may be shown by extrinsic or parol evidence, including evidence of his conduct subsequent to the execution of the will. (96 C.J.S., Wills, Sec. 1178[a], p. 1012.) The rule and the underlying reason therefor is stated in 6 Page on Wills [Bowe-Parker Revision], Ademption, Sec. 54.27, p. 283, in these words:
There is some authority that evidence of declarations made long after the inter vivos payment is not admissible for the purpose of showing a testor's intention in making a gift. (Will of Cramer, 183 Wis. 525, 198 N.W. 386.) However, it should be noted that in Cramer, unlike the instant case, the only evidence sought to be introduced on the question of intent was manifested long after (eighteen months) the inter vivos gift and there were no accompanying or corroborating statements made by the testator contemporaneously with or prior to the gift. On the other hand, what we believe to be the better reasoned authorities allow evidence of such declarations even if made subsequent to the gift, the matter of time merely going to the weight to be accorded such evidence rather than its admissibility. Attempted alterations in the will, although insufficient as such, may be pertinent to show the testator's intention as to whether the gift is adeemed or satisfied. (96 C.J.S., Wills, Sec. 1178(a), p. 1012; and Matter of Tallman, 131 Misc. 863, 229 N.Y.S. 308.) Testimony that decedent made a new will, omitting the Tullis and Pittsburg bequests, shortly after she made the inter vivos gift is admissible to show her intention at the time of making the gift. The purpose of such testimony was not to revoke or replace the 1965 will. It is generally recognized that the attorney-client privilege does not prohibit an attorney from testifying about the execution of a will. The privilege does not apply to litigation between parties who *257 claim under the client after the death of the client. (8 Wigmore on Evidence [McNaughton Revision, 1961], Sec. 2314, p. 611; Tanner v. Farmer, 243 Or. 431, 414 P.2d 340; 66 A.L.R.2d, Anno. p. 1302.)
In the instant case, testimony of facts and declarations going to decedent's intention in making a new will and in explanation of why it was not executed, as well as testimony as to her intention in making the inter vivos gift, is all relative to the critical issue whether she intended to satisfy the legacy at the time she made the inter vivos gift.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment below is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to grant a new trial on all issues.
OWSLEY, J., not participating.