Opinion ID: 1282574
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: History of family relationships

Text: There is no important disagreement about the relationships between members of the Willbanks family. We agree with the Court of Appeals that: The record is replete with evidence of Lillian's animosity toward her son, Charles, Jr., and her grandson, Will   and her favoritism toward her granddaughter LaVonne   ; the record also establishes that Charles, Sr., did not share those feelings but had good relationships with all. 70 Or. App. at 434, 689 P.2d 1004. The testimony of Charles, Jr.'s, wife, Lorraine, of the plaintiff, and of two long-time family friends established Lillian's hostility to Charles, Jr., and her preference for LaVonne over plaintiff, which she often expressed with gifts to LaVonne. Lillian's affection for LaVonne did not diminish even after a legal battle between them during 1975-76 over LaVonne's management of Lillian's assets while serving as conservator; Lillian forgave the judgment that was entered against LaVonne in that case and retained LaVonne as the primary beneficiary in her 1978 will and 1980 codicil. Lorraine and plaintiff also testified that Charles, Sr., was not so biased and got along well with Charles, Jr., plaintiff and LaVonne. The differing affections of Charles, Sr., and Lillian for family members created tensions between the two of them concerning disposition of their property. Lorraine testified to a conversation in which Charles, Sr., told her I want to divide whatever I have equally between my grandchildren.    I can't leave a lot to my son because it just makes family matters worse. Q. What was he referring to when he said it would make family matters worse? A. Well, my mother-in law and he didn't agree about evidently, what was going on and she did not want Will or Charles to have anything. And he felt that Will and LaVonne should be treated equally. Plaintiff related an incident in which his grandfather bought him an accordion worth over $500, which Lillian did not want Charles, Sr., to buy: Q. How do you know your grandmother didn't like that? A. It was very obvious. On the way to town she didn't speak to my grandfather, she didn't speak to me. Plaintiff testified about a conversation with Charles, Sr., in December, 1967: One of the things he wanted to say was the reason that my father was only briefly mentioned in the will because it was a trade-off with my grandmother.    Q. Did he indicate why he was cutting your father off? A. Yes, he said it was a trade-off with my grandmother because it was the only way that she would agree to split the estate 50-50.    Q. Did he indicate anything or make any statement to the effect that he was attempting to keep peace with your grandmother? A. That  that was the gist of the conversation. That's the only way that he could have a tolerable relationship with my grandmother. Plaintiff testified that Charles also told him in early summer of '68 that the only way he could get my grandmother to agree to that was to    take my father out of the will.