Opinion ID: 1660591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Contract to Make a Will.

Text: The first issue raised on this appeal is whether or not there was a contract to make a will. On November 7, 1963, the defendant, in his own hand, captioned a sheet of paper Last Will and Testament and wrote in part: 2 nd I hereby will and bequeth [sic] to my good friend and neighbor Susan E. Gename if [she] survives [me] the house and land as it stands with all of the household furnishings and equipment including my automobile, to be hers absolutely. I do this in appreciation of the kindness and care that she has shown me. Plaintiff contends that this writing, though ineffective as a will due to want of execution, is a memorandum of an agreement between the parties to make a will. In other words, the plaintiff contends that this writing is a promise by the defendant to make a will which leaves his home, household furnishings, and automobile to the plaintiff. This document is not a contract. There are no words of promise. [1] It is nothing more than an ineffective testamentary disposition. Four days later, on November 11, 1963, the defendant did in fact draft and execute a will in substantial conformity with the writing. This will would have operated to pass the property to the plaintiff if the defendant had died while it was still effective. Therefore, even if the writing is construed as a promise, the defendant has fully performed. It is only contended that the defendant promised to make a will, not that he promised to make an irrevocable will. Estate of Hoeppner [2] and Estate of Rogers, [3] cited by the plaintiff, are not in point. They were specific-performance actions wherein a party to a contract that called for the making of separate wills (which were mutual and reciprocal) had changed his will subsequent to the death of the other party. Here, we are not dealing with a joint-and-mutual-will situation and, even if we were, no will could pass any property in our situation because the testator is very much alive. Under the circumstances defendant's property was not impressed with a trust and the first part of the plaintiff's complaint is without merit.