Court Opinion

ID: 9656571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:51:21.558116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:33.302261
License: Public Domain

Brown, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The scrivener testified (appellant’s summary) :
“I asked her about her husband and she said she didn’t want to leave him anything. She said they made a division of property during their lifetime and she got her one half and he got his one half. I asked her about the house. She *36said it was in joint tenancy and that she would like to have it, but it would go to Mr. Joslin if she died first.”
There was no other evidence of testatrix’s motive in omitting provision for her husband.
In my opinion this makes it perfectly clear that Mrs. Joslin did not cut her husband out of her will because of a belief that he was an adulterer but because of a belief that what he got six years earlier in a division of property was enough for him. There was no delusion about the division or about Mr. Joslin’s receipts. They are facts. She stated they were the motivating facts. The will was drawn and executed in recognition of those facts. I consider the events or beliefs which originally caused the property to be divided are immaterial.
The will should be sustained and the judgment admitting it to probate should be affirmed.