Opinion ID: 1921552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: We are of the opinion the following issue is dispositive of this appeal: Whether there was sufficient evidence upon which the trial court could have concluded that Ethel Ward was subject to the undue influence of Ronald Ward at the time she signed the quitclaim deed, and the deed could, therefore, be declared voidable? Estate of Von Ruden (1972), 55 Wis. 2d 365, 373, 198 N. W. 2d 583, sets forth a recent summary of the necessary elements for a finding of undue influence: In order to void a will because of undue influence, four elements must be proved by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence: ` Susceptibility  a person who is susceptible of being unduly influenced by the person charged with exercising undue influence.  ` Opportunity the opportunity of the person charged to exercise such influence on the susceptible person to procure the improper favor. ` Disposition a disposition on the part of the party charged to influence unduly such susceptible person for the purpose of procuring an improper favor either for himself or another. ` Coveted Result  a result caused by, or the effect of, such undue influence. Will of Freitag (1960), 9 Wis. 2d 315, 317, 101 N. W. 2d 108. `. . . `The burden is upon the objector to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that the will was a result of undue influence. However, in recognition of the difficulty of proving undue influence an additional rule is applicable. When three of the four elements are established by the required proof, only slight evidence as to the fourth element is necessary to prove its existence. Will of Freitag, supra, page 318.' Estate of Brehmer (1969), 41 Wis. 2d 349, 351, 352, 164 N. W. 2d 318. See also: Estate of Velk, supra, pages 508, 509; Estate of McGonigal (1970), 46 Wis. 2d 205, 174 N. W. 2d 256; Estate of Ritter (1969), 43 Wis. 2d 507, 168 N. W. 2d 588. In addition, undue influence may be proved independently of the above criteria where a confidential or fiduciary relationship exists between the testator and the beneficiary coupled with the existence of `suspicious circumstances.' Estate of Komarr (1970), 46 Wis. 2d 230, 175 N. W. 2d 473; Will of Cooper (1965), 28 Wis. 2d 391, 137 N. W. 2d 93.... The court has applied the same four elements of the test of undue influence to set aside an inter vivos transfer. Estate of Larsen (1959), 7 Wis. 2d 263, 96 N. W. 2d 489. The trial court's finding of undue influence will not be set aside unless it is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. Casper v. McDowell (1973), 58 Wis. 2d 82, 89, 205 N. W. 2d 753; Johnson v. Mielke (1970), 49 Wis. 2d 60, 81, 181 N. W. 2d 503.  On appeal there was much dispute between the parties regarding what the testimony at trial would support as a finding of fact by the trial court. One fact is unquestionably clear from the record in this case. The marriage of Ronald and Ethel was not ideal. There is substantial evidence that Ronald drank intoxicating liquor excessively, at least during the latter years of their marriage, and frequently physically abused his wife when he was under the influence of intoxicants. Counsel for the respondent was criticized for embellishing the abuse suffered by Ethel Ward in an attempt to create sympathy for her by the trial court. However, one of the material elements of undue influence is susceptibility. The fear that Ethel Ward had of her husband was very important in this regard. Ethel ultimately became involved with a particular religion, and there is evidence that Ronald violently opposed this activity. Ethel Ward is a small woman, five feet tall, and weighing 96 pounds. At the time of the trial, she was fortyfive years old, and her marriage to Ronald had produced six children: Carl, twenty-two, and Russell, twenty-one, both of whom were married and had homes of their own; Arthur, eighteen; Margie, fifteen; David, twelve; and Richard, eleven. Ethel Ward testified that when her husband came home under the influence of alcohol many times he would grab ahold of her arm and throw her out of bedclear across the room. This happened at least once every two weeks. The situation became worse the three or four years before Ethel commenced an action for separate maintenance in 1970. It appears that Ethel did not believe in divorce, which she testified was scripturally recognized only in the case of adultery. During these latter years together, Ronald would slap her hard enough to knock her down and threatened to kill her several times. Ethel Ward described an incident with Ronald just before she left him in August, 1970,  where he almost carried through his threat to kill her. Ronald and Ethel were driving home from Boscobel, and Ronald was very angry at her. He told Ethel he would beat her into the floor when he got her home, and then stopped the car at a quarry, indicating that he could do it there so that she would not be able to summon the sheriff. Ronald walked around the car and put both of his hands on her throat and put her down on the seat, at which time a car was driven past and he walked back to where it was dark. When the car had passed, he came back to the car and took ahold of her again in the same manner, but another car came past. Ronald then drove her home and said he had to get out of there before he killed her because he knew that was what he was going to do. Ronald was out of town again that next week (Ronald's job oftentimes required that he be away during the week), and she was not alone with him again until Queram advised her to leave the home. Ronald testified that he did not frequently physically abuse his wife the year before they separated in April, 1970, and that only once did Sheriff Ray Childs have to come to the house. On the other hand, Sheriff Childs testified that his office had been called on November 10, 1969, November 27, 1969, and on July 24, 1970, and on each occasion took Ronald into custody. Childs testified that on November 10th he went to the home and found Ronald standing with another man by the car and saw Ethel out by the barn. Ethel had been hit in the face and her face was starting to swell. Blood was running down her face and the cloth in her hand was bloody. Childs testified that Ronald appeared to be intoxicated and took a swing at him when he tried to arrest him. Ronald was charged with battery, pled guilty, and placed on probation to Childs for six months. As a result of the incident on November 27th, Ronald signed a voluntary commitment to go to Mendota for his drinking problem. He was transferred to the Veterans' Hospital  at Tomah and released. Childs also testified that in the years prior to November, 1969, he had been called out to the Ward home for similar incidents at least a dozen times. Arthur Ward, the son of Ronald and Ethel, testified that he witnessed many arguments and fights; that Ethel never gave Ronald provocation; and that when he got older he would step in to prevent Ronald from hitting her. Arthur testified, She loved him but Christ he scared the hell out of her. Dr. C. H. Miller, the family physician, testified that it was his opinion that Ethel Ward was the type of person subject to duress or subject to being forced into submission. The record supports a finding that she was susceptible to his undue influence. In Estate of Gaudynski (1970), 46 Wis. 2d 393, 400, 175 N. W. 2d 272, it was explained as follows: All influence on a person to make certain provisions in a will is not undue. People in everyday life make up their minds because of the influence of others. People only act when motivated. An influence is only undue `when it becomes so strong it overpowers and compels the exercise of the will of the person subjected to it.' Will of Cooper (1965), 28 Wis. 2d 391, 400, 137 N. W. 2d 93. The test is whether the free agency of the testator has been destroyed.' Will of Faulks (1945), 246 Wis. 319, 17 N. W. 2d 423. And it has been said `A disposition to unduly influence a testatrix means something more than a mere desire to obtain a share of an estate. It implies a willingness to do something wrong or unfair.' Estate of Phillips, supra; Estate of Knutson, supra.  Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Ronald had the opportunity to influence Ethel because they did not live together for a full three months before the deed was executed. It is true that Ronald moved out of the house when Ethel commenced her first action for separate maintenance. On July 7th,  Ronald was served with the complaint. The quitclaim deed was executed on July 20th. Ethel testified that in the week or so before the deed was signed, Ronald had come out to the farm and talked to her about reconciliation. She said that when Ronald told her to go down to Queram's office (the record reflects Ronald had already directed him to draw up the necessary papers) and sign the deed, that his voice was threatening. Arthur Ward testified that he was aware that his father was talking to his mother about reconciliation the week prior to July 20th. He said Ronald told Ethel that they had to sign the farm back to Sadie; that ... he didn't ask her or anythinghe told her to sign that they should sign the farm backthere was no choice he didn't offer a choiceI know he didn't. Margie Ward, a daughter of Ronald and Ethel, also corroborated Arthur's testimony. Appellant's argument that Ronald was not living with Ethel during the weeks prior to July 20th and, therefore, did not have the opportunity to influence her, is without foundation. In Winn v. Itzel (1905), 125 Wis. 19, 33, 34, 103 N. W. 220, it was explained ... that `opportunity' here does not mean mere physical propinquity or possibility of personal contact, but the fact that interviews or personal transactions between the parties were had, followed by the accomplishment of the desired end, ... Ethel Ward went to Queram's office on July 20, 1970, at Ronald's direction, and Ronald and Sadie Ward were also present. Ethel testified that: ... Mr. Queram asked for me to come in and he talked about a reconciliation and I had misgivings of it even after I agreed to itI had misgivings of it but he said it was worth a try isn't it and then he had Ron come in and then we did agree to a reconciliation. Ronald had earlier testified that they had previously agreed to reconcile, but Ethel said that was not true.  Reconciliation and execution of the deed were accomplished the same day. After they agreed to reconcile, the papers were all ready to be signed. Ethel signed the quitclaim deed and an affidavit that she executed such deed voluntarily, without coercion, and not under duress. Ethel testified that she did not read the deed or the affidavit before she signed them and that she did not feel that she had a choice in the matter as to whether she should sign or not. Ethel also testified that she had previously suggested to Ronald that they sell the farm, pay the balance due on the land contract to Ronald's mother, and still have enough to start fresh on a new placeperhaps smaller. Ronald denied this. Ronald never agreed to this and, instead, accused Ethel of trying to take the farm away from him. ... The disposition to influence is shown by `a willingness to do something wrong or unfair, and grasping or overreaching characteristics.... Casper v. McDowell, supra, page 95. Undue influence is by its very nature rarely susceptible of direct proof, although in this case Ethel did testify that she had no choice but to sign the deed, and this testimony is corroborated by that of several children. The record reflects that Ronald was worried about losing the farm after he was served with Ethel's complaint on July 7th. The fact that he directed Queram to draw up the papers and told Ethel to sign them clearly supports the trial court's conclusion that the deed was signed by Ethel while she was subject to his undue influence. A coveted result is obvious. There was a balance due on the land contract of $5,746.84 ($10,000$500 down payment; $3,685.27 payments; and $67.89 miscellaneous payments). The balance due on the contract was canceled in exchange for the quitclaim deed. The farm was sold to Trumm for $32,000, cash, on February 4, 1971, just  before this action was commenced. Trumm, himself, sold the land approximately five months later, on July 18, 1971, for $54,000. Appellant argues that at the time the quitclaim deed was executed by Ethel, the land was not worth in excess of $30,000, as the trial court found. It is appellant's position that ... the two subsequent sales express no more than perfect consistency with the uncontradicted testimony (Ronald's) as to the rapidly rising land values since the date of the quitclaim deed. However, if this land was only worth approximately $6,000 on July 20, 1970, it increased more than 500 percent in six months, and approximately 900 percent in less than one year. Transfers of such an unusual nature as this quitclaim deed, raise a red flag of warning. Estate of Culver (1964), 22 Wis. 2d 665, 673, 126 N. W. 2d 536. Close and careful scrutiny of such a transaction, particularly when one considers the relationship of the parties, is required. 23 Am. Jur. 2d, Deeds, p. 195, sec. 149. The result in this case is that Sadie Ward, who does not appear to be at fault in any way, does not receive all of the proceeds from the sale to Trumm. However, it is clear that she received that to which she was entitled the balance due on the land contractif the farm had been properly sold by Ronald and Ethel. It is generally recognized as follows: Where a deed was procured by undue influence, it is immaterial that in the procurement thereof the immediate beneficiary did not participate, or that a third person acted with the beneficiary in exercising such undue influence. This rule has been said to be essential to justice, since if it were otherwise, a designing person could escape the consequences of his wrong by causing conveyances to be made to third persons who would hold the property for him. 23 Am. Jur. 2d, Deeds, p. 198, sec. 153.  In Will of Cooper, supra, page 399, it was explained that ... [t]he concept of coveted result includes obtaining for oneself or another a benefit such person would normally not receive and its reception is unjust to someone else. Sadie Ward testified at trial that her health was not too good and that she was eighty-two years of age. Ronald had been living with her much of the time when he and Ethel were having domestic problems. Her eyesight was failing her. Sadie testified that she did not know that Ronald and Ethel were going to deed the farm back to her and she had not discussed the matter with Ronald. We conclude that the finding of undue influence at the time Ethel Ward executed the quitclaim deed is not against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence, and for this reason the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Therefore, it is not necessary to further consider the other issues raised by the parties, or the additional findings of the trial judge. By the Court. Judgment affirmed.