Court Opinion

ID: 9519761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:24:33.83129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:50.968808
License: Public Domain

Currie, J.
(concurring). This concurring opinion has been prompted by the dissenting opinion filed herein.
The dissenting opinion states that “we are not dealing here with a will contest.” The will of September 29, 1949, and the codicil of September 11, 1950, were admitted to probate ex parte upon a waiver signed by the widow as sole heir at law and next of kin of testator without any notice being given by publication, or otherwise. The application of Carl R. Holty was therefore a proceeding under sec. 324.05, Stats., for reopening of the probate and granting a new trial on the issue of whether such will and codicil should be admitted to probate. If the order admitting the will and codicil to probate is revoked and a new trial granted, the trial court will then have before it a typical will contest in which objections have been filed alleging undue influence.
However, the rules of evidence applicable to a hearing on an application revoking an order admitting a will to probate, on the ground that the will was originally obtained by undue influence, and for a new trial on the issue presented by the objections of the objector, are the same as in a will contest proper.
Former wills have been admitted in evidence many times in cases reviewed by this court wherein it was sought to set aside a will on the ground of undue influence. Will of Bocker (1918), 167 Wis. 100, 166 N. W. 660; Will of Boardman (1922), 178 Wis. 517, 190 N. W. 355; Will of Link (1930), 202 Wis. 1, 231 N. W. 177; Will of Stanley (1937), 226 *320Wis. 354, 276 N. W. 353; and Will of Klofonda (1949), 254 Wis. 186, 36 N. W. (2d) 71. See also the annotation in 82 A. L. R. 963, 968, 970. There is no question but what former wills may constitute material evidence in will contests, and we have before us in this case the issue of whether, if such former wills happen to be in the possession of an attorney for testator, they constitute privileged communications which are barred by sec. 325.22, Stats. This court has declared in Will of Downing (1903), 118 Wis. 581, 95 N. W. 876, and Koeber v. Somers (1901), 108 Wis. 497, 504, 84 N. W. 991, that sec. 4076 (now sec. 325.22), is nothing more than a re-enactment of the common law. At the time these two decisions were rendered, sec. 4076 read the same as the first sentence of sec. 325.22, Stats. 1951, but the later addition of the second sentence of present sec. 325.22 does not make the statute more restrictive than the common law, because such second sentence merely provides for exceptions to the rule stated in the first sentence, which exceptions are also recognized at common law.
Probably the leading case on the application of the common-law rule with respect to the admissibility in will cases of communications between a deceased testator and his attorney is that of Glover v. Patten (1897), 165 U. S. 394, 406, 17 Sup. Ct. 411, 41 L. Ed. 760. In this case the United States supreme court speaking through Mr. Justice Brown reviewed the English cases on the subject and came to the following conclusion:
“But whatever view be taken of the facts, we are of opinion that, in a suit between devisees under a will, statements made by the deceased to counsel respecting the execution of the will, or other similar document, are not privileged. While such communications might be privileged, if offered by third persons to establish claims against an estate, they are not within the reason of the rule requiring their exclusion, when the contest is. between the heirs or next of kin.”
This same rule is stated in 70 C. J., Witnesses, p. 438, sec. 587, as follows:
*321“It is generally considered that the rule of privilege does not apply in litigation, after the client’s death, between parties, all of whom claim under the client; and, so, where the controversy is to determine who shall take by succession the property of a deceased person and both parties claim under him, neither can set up a claim of privilege against the other as regards the communications of deceased with his attorney.”
Other authorities holding that, in litigation between heirs, devisees, and legatees, all claiming through the testator, either by inheritance under intestacy statutes or through a last will and testament, the rule of a privileged communication between testator and his attorney cannot be invoked by one party against another to exclude such a communication which is material on the issues of the case are: 58 Am. Jur., Witnesses, p. 284, sec. 505; 70 C. J., Witnesses, p. 425, sec. 567; Anno. 2 A. L. R. (2d) 645, 659; Kern v. Kern (1900), 154 Ind. 29, 55 N. E. 1004; Winters v. Winters (1897), 102 Iowa, 53, 71 N. W. 184; Greene’s Estate (1907), 102 Me. 455, 67 Atl. 317; Bensinger v. Hemler (1919), 134 Md. 581, 107 Atl. 355; Eicholtz v. Grunewald (1946), 313 Mich. 666, 21 N. W. (2d) 914; and Estate of Wunsch (1929), 177 Minn. 169, 225 N. W. 109.
The majority opinion cites In re Young’s Estate (1908), 33 Utah, 382, 392, 94 Pac. 731, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 108, in which the Utah court in a very well-reasoned opinion directly held that it was proper to prove by the attorney for the testator the contents of a former will, and declared:
“We are constrained to hold, therefore, that as between heirs or beneficiaries of a deceased person in a will contest, where undue influence or want of capacity are in issue, neither side can invoke the privilege as against the testimony of an attorney who prepared the will under the direction of the deceased, and the attorney should be required to disclose all matters relevant to such issues the same as any other person cognizant of the facts would be.”
Another case very much in point is Will of Everett (1933 ), 105 Vt. 291, 313, 166 Atl. 827, in which it was held in a *322will contest that three letters received by an attorney from testator relating to changes testator proposed to make in a previous will (not the will offered for probate) were admissible on the ground that after the client’s death such letters were not within the protection of the rule as to privileged communications in a suit between testator’s devisees and his heirs at law, or other parties who claimed under the testator.
The dissenting opinion cites a New York decision on the question of privileged communications. However, the Nebraska supreme court in the case of Estate of Bayer (1928), 116 Neb. 670, 218 N. W. 746, points out that the early New York cases followed the common-law rule, to the effect that the privilege between attorney and client did not apply in will contests where all parties claimed under the testator, until 1877 when the New York statute was changed. Prior to such statutory change in New York, the New York statute was similar in wording to the first sentence of sec. 325.22, Stats. After the change, the New York statutes (secs. 353 and 354 of the Civil Practice Act, Thompson’s Laws of New York), provided that an attorney was absolutely prohibited from testifying to communications from his client unless the provisions of the statutes “are expressly waived tip on the trial or examination by . . . the client. ... The waivers herein provided for must be made in open court, on the trial of the action or proceeding, and a paper executed by a party prior to the trial providing for such waiver shall be insufficient as such a waiver.” There is an express provision that permits attorneys to testify in will contests as to the preparation and execution of the will offered for probate. It is thus apparent that the New York statute, unlike our own statute, since 1877 is no longer declaratory of the common law, and the New York decisions are distinguishable because of the difference in wording between the New York and Wisconsin statutes.
In the instant case, the objector Holty claims as a legatee of testator, and therefore, under the authorities hereinbefore *323cited, the former wills of testator in the possession of Attorney Meissner were not inadmissible as privileged communications. They apparently were not offered by Holty on the question of undue influence, but in order to establish that Holty took more under a former will than he did under the will and codicil admitted to probate. Such former wills therefore would be material evidence on such issue. This court stated in Estate of Buffington (1946), 249 Wis. 172, 174, 23 N. W. (2d) 517:
“One must have some interest in the disallowance of a will in order to object to its probate. An heir at law might do so, if he would receive more by descent in case the testamentary disposition were not to be established. . . . The appellant, however, was not an heir at law of Fannie E. Buffington. She also would have been entitled to object to the will and codicil offered for probate had she been able to offer a prior will for probate containing a more favorable provision for her.” (Emphasis supplied.)
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Fairchild joins in this concurring opinion.