Court Opinion

ID: 9685568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:48:35.826909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:07.767403
License: Public Domain

BIEGELMEIER, Judge
(dissenting).
SDCL 29-2-6 states the requirements for execution of a will and, so far as pertinent here, provides:
“Every will * * * must be executed and attested as follows:
(1) It must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator * * *
(2) The subscription must be made in the presence of the attesting witnesses, or be acknowledged by the testator to them to have been made by him * * *
(3) The testator must, at the time of subscribing or acknowledging the same, declare to the attesting witnesses that the instrument is his will;
(4) There must be two attesting witnesses, each of whom must sign his name as a witness at the end of the will, at the testator's request and in his presence;".
*685This court has given considerable weight to commonly used attestation clauses signed by witnesses to wills. These opinions are sound. See In re Rowland's Estate, 70 S.D. 419, 18 N.W.2d 290; In re Ryan's Estate, 74 S.D. 359, 53 N.W.2d 11; in re Houda Estate, 76 S.D. 388, 79 N.W.2d 289; and Mahlman v. Kratzer, 80 S.D. 264, 122 N.W.2d 215. What was said in those and other opinions about presumptions, etc. and decided in those appeals must be considered as applying to the facts before the court—the presence of, and evidence in some cases of the reading of, a full attestation clause. The clause, in some cases, standing alone supplied facts of due execution of a will expressly certified to by a witness, which he thereafter did not recall or might even deny at the probate hearing. Our former opinions indicate by extensive discussion much reliance was given to the clause to support and validate wills when, as the majority opinion now concludes, there was no necessity of the clause at all. Neither these opinions nor statements therein where such clauses appear should be transposed to make up for absence of such a clause.
That the instrument at bar contains the genuine signatures of Farnsworth and two "witnesses" is not disputed, yet those two disinterested, intelligent co-workers and witnesses testified:
Mr. Parkes:
"Q Do you remember signing this at Mr. Farns-worth's request?
"A No, I do not.
^ # # #
"Q * * * did he (Farnsworth) sign this document in your presence?
"A I do not know."
Mr. Bucklin:
"I don't remember the details or circumstances. * * * I can't specifically remember witnessing any wills * 5(1 *"
*686Mr. Bucklin had formerly worked at a desk next to deceased and it would seem that if he had been advised, or could see if it was a will at the time he signed his name (not an attestation clause but only as a witness) he would have remembered doing so for a co-worker.
It was on this evidence the court found Mr. Fransworth did not sign the document or acknowledge his signature to it in the presence of—or to—the witnesses; that he did not declare to them that it was his will; nor that the witnesses signed it at his request.* These were for the trier of fact to determine (In re Ryan's Estate, supra) and not for this court. There is one added factor that may have influenced the trial court, that is, Mr. Farnsworth practically disinherited one of his children. That is his right and he does state reasons for it in this document, yet, because of it, this may have been the reason he wanted to draw it himself and keep it a secret until his death and not even divulge what he had signed to these witnesses—for had he so advised them, it would normally have aroused some inquiry or comment from them. In any event that was for the trier of fact. In our review we must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the party prevailing in circuit court, the findings are presumptively correct and will not be disturbed unless there is a clear preponderance of the evidence against them. In re Rowland's Estate, supra; In re Zech's Estate, 69 S.D. 51, 6 N.W.2d 432; and In re Swanson's Estate, 79 S.D. 3, 107 N.W.2d 256.
It is not difficult to execute a will under our law, but the standard should not be relaxed to assume facts and evidence to fill the gaps that exist here. I would affirm.

 The court’s findings were:
VI.
“That there is no evidence to show that Ex. 1-A was subscribed by the deceased in the presence of the attesting witnesses or acknowledged by the deceased to them to have been made by him or by his authority;
VII.
“That there is no testimony to show that at the time of subscribing or acknowledging Ex. 1-A that the deceased declared to the attesting witnesses that the instrument was his will;
vm.
“That there is no proof 1-hat the purported attesting witnesses signed Ex. 1-A at the request of the deceased or in his presence;”.