Opinion ID: 1751169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Estate of A.M. Stephenson, Deceased.

Text: A.M. Stephenson died testate on January 29, 1987. Under his will filed with the county court on February 13, 1987, and later admitted to probate, A.M. Stephenson acknowledged that he left two sons and a daughter surviving him and, after devising a trust estate of $35,000 for the benefit of Helen Stephenson, devised a life estate to Helen concerning the family residence, made several bequests to his children and grandchildren, devised the Stephenson Toddy Shop, a liquor store, to his grandsons, bequeathed to his children and grandchildren all his capital shares in the Grand Hotel Company, and devised the residue of his estate to his son and grandsons. The inventory filed in the A.M. Stephenson estate reflected assets valued at $1.1 million, that is, the following assets and values: real estate$154,400; securities $274,154; notes and cash$176,800; insurance $2,800; property owned jointly with a person other than Helen Stephenson $165,000; miscellaneous personal property $63,574; and gifts within 3 years before A.M. Stephenson's death$276,000. At the trial concerning Helen's petition for an elective share and allowances and the personal representatives' objection based on the antenuptial agreement, Helen Stephenson, when asked whether A.M. Stephenson or his lawyer, Wellensiek, had told her about all of A.M. Stephenson's property, replied: I just don't remember because all I wanted to do was get that paper signed and get out and get my bag packed. Further, on cross-examination of Helen Stephenson, questions were asked and answered as follows: QIsn't it true, Mrs. Stephenson, that at the time you signed the agreement, you didn't care whether [A.M. Stephenson] had any other property because all you wanted was to be taken care of? AThat's right. QYou had kind of a rough life up until that point in time AI did. QYour first husband was not able to support you very well? AThat's right. QAnd all you were really interested in was in being taken care of? AThat's right. QAnd that isAnd that came down to having a home and some security? AThat's right. .... QAnd isn't it true, Mrs. Stephenson, that you don't know what it was that Mr. Stephenson had, that he did not disclose at the time that you entered into the [antenuptial agreement], because you were not interested, isn't that true? AYes, it's true. .... QSo you weren't interested in what he had that he may not have disclosed at the time of the execution of the prenuptial agreement back in 1969, isn't that true? AI didn't go into it QBut the fact of the matter is, that at the time of the execution of that agreement you were not interested because what you wanted was a husband and security? AThat's right. The county court found that the evidence clearly and convincingly established A.M. Stephenson's fraud in concealing information concerning his assets when he and Helen signed their antenuptial agreement. Therefore, the county court found that A.M. Stephenson's fraud by concealment invalidated the antenuptial agreement and determined that Helen Stephenson, in the absence of the antenuptial agreement which was invalidated, was entitled to a $412,516 share of the estate of A.M. Stephenson, deceased. The court also awarded Helen allowances for homestead, exempt property, and spousal support for 1 year. Attorney fees were awarded to the personal representatives' lawyers. In appeals to the district court, the county court's judgment for the attorney fees was affirmed, but the district court concluded that evidence of A.M. Stephenson's fraud was not clear and convincing and, consequently, reversed the county court's judgment concerning invalidation of the antenuptial agreement and remanded the cause to the county court with the direction previously mentioned.