Opinion ID: 1282574
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Circumstances surrounding execution of the wills

Text: Besides testimony by Lorraine and plaintiff that years later Charles, Sr., told them how he and Lillian had written their wills, the trial court heard testimony by Marie Martin, secretary to the attorney, Biggs, who drafted the wills. We agree with the trial court and Court of Appeals that her testimony established that Charles, Sr., and Lillian initially disagreed about their wills, but thereafter somehow came to an agreement. We accept Martin's testimony as establishing the following. In regular practice, once a client had decided what he or she wanted in a will, Biggs would call Martin in to take his dictation regarding terms of the will. Biggs did this because it enabled clients to hear what was being dictated and to make necessary corrections and changes then rather than later, and because Biggs himself wasn't good at memory work. On the Willbanks' first visit to Biggs' office, Biggs did not call Martin in, but as they were leaving, they were not too happy apparently from what I gathered and Mr. Biggs said to them, well, you go and talk it over and come back. And if you want to make the will, fine. Martin testified to a conversation she had with Biggs after the Willbanks left the office, but did not clarify what Biggs said to them about what kind of wills he was willing to prepare for them. Biggs told Martin that the Willbanks couldn't agree as to what they wanted   . [T]he problem was, that Mr. Willbanks wanted a will that couldn't be broken, both of them to make wills that couldn't be broken.    And she didn't want that kind of will. Q.    Then what happened? A. Well, he told me that he would not make that kind of a will. He said that if they wanted that kind of will, they would have to go to another attorney, that he would not make that type of will. Later she testified that [Biggs] told [Charles, Sr.,] if they wanted that kind of will, they would have to go to someone else. On cross examination by defendant's counsel, Martin testified that Biggs had a policy against either a joint will, one document signed by both parties, or a will where they agree in the will that they cannot break it or change it after the death of the other. Q.    Isn't that the essence it was going to be a joint will or a will which would contain within its four corners some reference to an agreement not to revoke? A. Yes, that's right. On redirect, she testified that If the party died, the other one couldn't change it, he would not draft that kind of will. While there is no doubt that Biggs had a policy against preparing either joint or mutual wills that could not be revoked, it is not clear how well he communicated that policy to his clients or what they understood it to mean. Martin was not present during Biggs' conversation with the clients. Mr. and Mrs. Willbanks later returned to Biggs' office, and Biggs called Martin in to take dictation of the wills. Again, she had not been present during Biggs' consultation with them. During dictation, she heard no statements by Lillian and no reference to joint wills or to revocability of the wills. Martin testified that when Mr. and Mrs. Willbanks returned to sign the wills, Lillian was asked in that usual format whether it was her last will and testament. Martin couldn't tell you verbatim what was the words, but Lillian's answer was to the effect that Well, it isn't exactly what I wanted but I will go along with Charles. She could not remember whether Lillian used the word compromise, and recalled no comments by Charles, Sr., at that time. On cross-examination, she agreed with defendant's counsel that these ended up being mutual and reciprocal wills in common which is what a large percentage of husbands and wives make routinely. She testified further that Biggs never drafted a will that one spouse could not change after the other died; however, had there been any agreement that these wills could not be revoked, she testified, Biggs would have mentioned that to Lillian and would have expressly dictated that agreement as part of the 1959 wills. On February 20, 1969, two months after Charles, Sr.'s, death, Lillian, accompanied by LaVonne, returned to Biggs' office to make a new will. Again, Martin took Biggs' dictation in Lillian's presence. Lillian stated that she did not feel that plaintiff could take care of money and that she therefore wanted to favor LaVonne. Martin did not remember any statements by anyone at that time about the 1959 will, and she heard Biggs make no objection to Lillian's preparing a new will.