Opinion ID: 1925309
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Burden of proof required.

Text: 1. Claimant has the burden of proof to establish his claim by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence. He must overcome the presumption that he was paid in full. In Estate of Del Marcell, 259 Wis. 47, the Court held: `Where a stated sum has been regularily [sic] paid during the decedent's life time, such payments are presumed to have been in full satisfaction thereof' See also: Estate of Bretizman, 236 Wis 96 2. Claimant states that he is entitled to have his claim allowed because the executor did not appear at the trial and that he should recover by default. The law is that the claimant has the burden of proof and unless he meets that burden with credible evidence, he can not prevail. It is concluded that there is not sufficient credible evidence in the record to support the claim of the claimant. He has failed to rebut the presumption that he has been paid in full. He offered only his own testimony and nothing else. His testimony as to transactions with the decedent were excluded because he was disqualified as a witness to testify as to any transactions or conversations with Mrs. Ford. The statements alleged to have been made by Mr. Ford were not admissible for the reason that no agency relationship was established. He failed to make a `Prima Facie' case. 3. The claimant could testify as to what services he claims to have rendered and what his opinion is as to the value of the same. See: Kirkpatrick vs Kirkpatrick, 257 Wis 549 4. However, the claimant has failed to establish any contract or agreement, express or implied, between himself and the decedent for additional compensation over and above that he has already received. Because of this complete failure of proof, it is concluded that the claim must be disallowed for the period of January 1, 1948 to April 9, 1960, the date of death of Mrs. Ford. 5. It is believed that this case is controlled by Estate of Kendall, 270 Wis 349. In that case an employee worked many years for the decedent at very low wages. Just before the decedent died, he made out a check payable to the employee in the sum of $12,000.00. The employee was unable to cash the check after the death of the decedent. The trial court allowed his claim in the amount of $12,000.00 as extra pay earned. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and held that the employee was entitled to nothing. In the opinion, (p. 356) the Court held: `The facts show only that the decedent felt under some obligation for the claimant's services and help, but they disclose no legal consideration, because a claim for an additional sum for services already rendered and fully paid for is without consideration on which it can be based.' `In the absence of an express contract, the mere expression of belief by the claimant that the latter was not sufficiently paid, can not sustain a claim for extra compensation.' `The adequancy [sic] or inadequancy [sic] of wages of the claimant is beside the point. The question is whether a contract or agreement existed between the deceased and the claimant, under which the claimant can claim additional compensation.' `Claimant has the burden of proving that an express contract existed between him and the testator, that the services were rendered by him, and that there was a failure to pay therefor on the part of the decedent.' `The claim must fall because there is no showing of a contract.' We agree with the trial court. Under the facts of this case the claimant cannot collect additional compensation upon the theory of quantum meruit. Mr. Smart also makes claim for his service from the date of death of the decedent, April 9, 1960, to July 15, 1960. The trial court has reserved a determination of this issue and may properly do so. By the Court. Judgment affirmed.