Court Opinion

ID: 9680586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:34:27.302365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.457261
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. MoFaddin, Associate Justice (dissenting). In reversing the Chancery decree, the Majority of this Court is thereby holding that the Chancellor’s decision is against the preponderance of the evidence. I cannot agree with the Majority; and, therefore, I dissent. Dr. Anderson executed his will on July 3, 1959. He died on June 15, 1960. The will was. admitted to probate on June 18, 1960; and on December 21, 1960, the appellant, Mrs. Helen A. Short, filed this contest. The will having been admitted to probate, the burden was on the contestant, Mrs. Short, to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the testator, Dr. Anderson, did not have testamentary capacity at the time he executed the will. (Ross v. Edwards, 231 Ark. 902, 333 S. W. 2d 487.) I emphasize that the burden was on the contestant. If the testimony was equally balanced, then the Chancellor was correct in denying the contest. If the evidence did not preponderate in favor of the validity of the will, it certainly did not preponderate in favor of the invalidity of the 'will. With the evidence in such equal balance, we should not reverse the Chancellor, who saw the witnesses and heard them testify, whereas we see only the cold printed page. I emphasize this point because the Majority Opinion attaches great importance to the testimony of Dr. W. P. Holman who answered a hypothetical question. It must be remembered that Dr. Holman never saw Dr. Anderson and only testified from facts detailed in the hypothetical question. I do not know how impressive Dr. Holman appeared on the witness stand: I only see the printed page. But, opposed to Dr. Holman’s testimony (who never saw Dr. Anderson), there is the testimony of Dr. B. Z. Binns, who was Dr. Anderson’s family physician and who saw him nearly every day; and Dr. Binns testified, based on his acquaintance and treatment, that Dr. Anderson was sane and of testamentary capacity on the day he executed the will. The Chancellor saw these two doctors testify and he took the testimony of Dr. Binns. I cannot, from the printed page, say that Dr. Binns was wrong and Dr. Holman was right. The entire question in this case is testamentary capacity on July 3, 1959, the day of the execution of the will.1 The number of witnesses called by the respective sides was practically even; but I propose to review the testimony now of some (not all) of the witnesses who testified that Dr. Anderson had testamentary capacity. 1. Mr. O. C. Burnside, Sr. was the attorney who drew the will. He has been practicing law in Lake Village for over 45 years and knew Dr. Anderson all of these years, having represented him in numerous matters both before and after the execution of the will. Some time in the early part of 1959 Dr. Anderson explained to Mr. Burnside that Dr. Anderson had recently inherited some property in Kentucky worth approximately $100,000.00 and that he wanted to give the property to his niece (the contestant, Mrs. Helen Short). Dr. Anderson wanted to know the easiest way to transfer the property with the least expense; and Mr. Burnside advised him what to do, and it was done. Thus, six months before the execution of the will Dr. Anderson gave his niece this property. In January 1960 there was a deficiency claim of income tax by the United States government against Dr. Anderson in the amount of $821.51; and Dr. Anderson again consulted with Mr. Burnside about this matter. I mention these dates to show that Mr. Burnside was frequently consulted by Dr. Anderson: one such instance beng before the will, and one being after it. Mr. Burnside testified that some days before July 3, 1959, Dr. Anderson came to him and told him that he wanted to make a will with a combined power of attorney so that his friend, Mr. R. T. Stephenson, could sign Dr. Anderson’s name to checks on the bank to look after him if he should be sick for a long time; and then could be executor of his estate when he passed away. Mr. Burnside spent some time seeing if such a “double barrel” instrument could be properly drawn. After several days Dr. Anderson saw Mr. Burnside and asked him what was his conclusion. Mr. Burnside agreed to draw the instrument, which is the will in this case. Dr. Anderson went to Mr. Burnside’s office, with some notations on paper, and told him how he wanted the will drawn and just whom he wanted to be the attesting witnesses; and Mr. Burnside drew the will. Mr. Burnside testified: “Q. At that time, and now were and are you of the opinion that the Will was an expression of Doctor Anderson’s own free will? “A. It was, definitely. ‘ ‘ Q. From yonr — all during your contacts with him and observations of him, did you ever, during that time, see him do, or, hear him say anything that indicated to you that he was not mentally competent? “A. No. £ £ Q. From your associations, contacts and observations of Doctor Anderson during all of the time that you have known him in the last few years prior to the writing of this Will, do you have an opinion as to whether Dr. Anderson was mentally competent on July the 3rd, 1959 ? ££A. I do. ££Q. What is that opinion? ££A. That he was mentally competent.” I attach great importance to this testimony. I find nothing in the record to weaken this testimony; and I attach great importance to it. 2. One of the attesting witnesses to the will was Mrs. Mary Thach. She testified that she had known Dr. Anderson for all of her life and that this was the second will she had witnessed for him; that she could see no change in his condition on the day he signed the will from what his condition had been in preceding years; that he was perfectly normal at the time he signed the will; that his memory was all right; and that he knew what he was doing. Mrs. Thach testified that Dr. Anderson was a Director in the Eudora Bank and hardly a day passed that he did not come into the bank and she saw him nearly every day; that Dr. Anderson had previously given her the combination to his safe and told her that if anything happened to him to give the combination either to Mr. Diehl or Robert Stephenson; that since Mr. Diehl was dead she gave the combination to Robert Stephenson after Dr. Anderson’s death. Now, here was a witness that had known Dr. Anderson all of her life; one who saw him nearly every day; one in whom he confided the combination to his safe. She witnessed his will and said he was of sound mind and firm memory at the time he executed the will. That is strong- testimony. 3. The next attesting- witness was Miss Segis Cheairs. She worked in the store on Main Street near the bank and had known Dr. Anderson all of her life. She testified that Dr. Anderson asked her to sign the will as a witness and she signed it; and that he was of sound mind at the time he signed it; that she saw no difference in him on that day than on any other day for the several years before. 4. Mr. Frank Pylate was a farmer and ginner in Eudora and 51 years of age. He had no interest whatsoever in this litigation. He testified that he was with Dr. Anderson both before and after July 3, 1959, and that in the fall of 1958 Dr. Anderson told him: “I am going to leave my affairs in the hands of Robert Stephenson. I think he is a mighty good man. ’ ’ Mr. Pylate testified that from all of his various contacts, associations, and observations of Dr. Anderson, he was of the opinion that Dr. Anderson was mentally competent to make a will on July 3, 1959. 5. Miss Edith Wilson testified that she had known Dr. Anderson since January 1900; that he had been her family doctor and she saw him during the years from 1957 to 1960; that he died in her home in 1960; and that from all of her observations, associations, and acquaintance with Dr. Anderson, she considered him mentally competent on July 3, 1959. 6. Mr. W. R. Jones was the Executive Officer of the Eudora Bank. Dr. Anderson was a Director in the bank until his death. Dr. Anderson attended all the Directors’ meetings in 1959 and through March 1960. In March 1959 Mr. Jones prepared papers for Dr. Anderson whereby he was making a loan of $6,000.00. Mr. Jones would see Dr. Anderson walking- down the street nearly every day, and there was never a time when he thought Dr. Anderson lacked mental competency. From his knowledge, acquaintance, and association with Dr. Anderson, Mr. Jones, the Executive Oficer of the Eudora Bank, who served on the Board of Directors with Dr. Anderson, testified that Dr. Anderson was mentally competent to make a will on July 3,1959. 7. Reverend John T. Miles was the Methodist minister in Eudora for two years up until June 1959. Dr. Anderson was a member of his church, and Dr. Anderson was always interested in needy cases. Reverend Miles said that Dr. Anderson was “as sharp as a tack,” and he considered him mentally competent in all matters. 8. Mr. S. H. Ball had lived in Eudora 41 years. He was a farmer and Constable of the township; and he testified that he saw Dr. Anderson nearly every day and from his observations and contacts he testified that Dr. Anderson was mentally competent on July 3, 1959. 9. Mr. R. C. Grubbs was a tax accountant and had lived in Eudora and known Dr. Anderson since 1922. He had handled Dr. Anderson’s income tax affairs since 1941. He prepared Dr. Anderson’s 1958 income tax return in 1959. Dr. Anderson had sold a farm and it took some time to refer back to his deeds and establish his cost basis; so Mr. Grubbs was with him continuously during that time. He testified that in all these transactions he never saw Dr. Anderson say or do anything that would indicate that he was mentally incompetent. 10. Mr. Ralph Scott was a business man, 52 years of age, had lived in Eudora 42 years, and was a member of the Board of Directors of the Eudora Bank, along with Dr. Anderson. He had known Dr. Anderson for over 40 years. He and Dr. Anderson regularly attended the meetings of the Board of Directors of the Bank. He testified that from all his acquaintance, contacts, and associations with Dr. Anderson, it was his opinion that Dr. Anderson was mentally competent on July 3,1959. We copy an excerpt from his testimony: “ Q. In your opinion was he mentally competent on July the 3rd, 1959? “A. I certainly think so, yes sir. “Q. Was he mentally competent at that time to know the extent and nature of his property? “A. Yes sir. ‘ ‘ Q. Was he mentally competent to know who might ordinarily expect to inherit from him? “A. I am sure he was. “Q. Was he mentally competent to know who he was putting in his will or cutting out of it? “A. I don’t think there would be any danger of any argument about that, the Doctor was about the same all the way through as far as I could tell. ’ ’ 11. Finally, I mention the testimony of Dr. B. Z. Binns, who had lived in Eudora since 1949, who had occasion to treat Dr. Anderson the last three years of his life, and was Dr. Anderson’s family physician. He testified that from all of his contacts, observations, treatments, and experiences with Dr. Anderson, it was his firm and abiding opinion that Dr. Anderson was mentally competent to make a will on July 3, 1959. Now, here was the doctor, who was Dr. Anderson’s family physician and treated him the last three years of his life, and he testified that Dr. Anderson was mentally competent to make a will on July 3, 1959. There were other witnesses, but I have selected those who knew Dr. Anderson for a number of years and had dealings with him: the lawyer who drew the will; the two attesting witnesses; the family physician; business associates ; the preacher; the constable; other friends. They all testified that Dr. Anderson was mentally competent to make a will. The fact that he was 90 years of age does not mean anything. I know several men 90 years of age who are as mentally alert as many men are at 45. I know one man past 90 who can repeat whole chapters of the Book of Acts and whole portions of Shakespeare’s plays. This Court, in Pernot v. King, 194 Ark. 896, 110 S. W. 2d 539, upheld the will of a man 92 years of age at the time of executing the will; and we said: “Mere age is not necessarily inconsistent with testamentary capacity. ‘Indeed, the mental faculties may he weakened and impaired by old age without destroying such capacity. The mere fact that an aged testator’s memory is failing, or that his judgment is vacillating, or that he is becoming eccentric, or that his mind is not as active as formerly — these things do not invalidate his will if it was fairly made and he was free from undue influence. While age is not of itself a disqualification, yet it excites vigilance to see if it is accompanied with capacity. ’ — Thompson on Wills, § 62, pp. 88-89. ’ ’ The burden of proof was on the appellant, Mrs. Helen Short, to establish a lack of testamentary capacity. The Chancellor, who saw the witnesses, held that she had failed to meet the burden. I cannot say that the Chancellor was wrong, so I dissent from the Majority Opinion in this case.   The Majority Opinion says: “. . . we find by a preponderance of the evidence that the testator did not have the necessary testamentary capacity to execute a will.” Again, the Majority Opinion says: “. . . a preponderance of the evidence proves that Dr. Anderson did not have the testamentary capacity required by law to execute a valid will.” And in the last paragraph the Majority Opinion says: “Although appellee introduced evidence tending to prove that Dr. Anderson was mentally capable of making a valid will, we are of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence is to the contrary.”