Court Opinion

ID: 9811178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:12:13.315506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:54.411754
License: Public Domain

Clarkson, J.,
dissenting: The majority opinion in the instant case permits a part of the heirs of a testator, as caveators, through a secret agreement with propounder and for a cash consideration, to withhold *159evidence of tbe invalidity of a will and tbns insure its probate. From sucb a view of our law, I respectfully dissent.
Tbe plaintiffs bere elected not to enter into, and actively contest, tbe probate of tbe will. Yet, if tbe will bad not been probated, tbey would bave received a third of tbe proceeds of a $35,000 secured note. As tbey were cited to appear in tbe proceedings, tbey were bound by tbe judgment entered therein. Their one-tbird interest in tbe note was contingent upon tbe outcome of tbe caveat proceeding. When tbe pro-pounder herein is permitted to buy bis peace by trading with tbe caveators, tbe propounder and tbe caveators, by a secret agreement, thereby deprive plaintiffs of their one-tbird interest in tbe note.
A general family settlement, of course, would be valid where it is “fair,” “equal,” and “deliberately assented to as a proper and just family agreement.” Bailey v. Wilson, 21 N. C., 182, 189. But, tbe entire theory of defendants’ position is a denial that this settlement was a general, family settlement. Further, when plaintiffs now seek to ratify it and thus make it a valid, family settlement, tbe defendants refuse to let them do so. Accordingly, this was not — and does not purport to be — a general, family settlement.
A careful search of all of tbe cases heretofore decided by this Court upon tbe subject of compromise settlement of will controversies indicates that each of these agreements receiving tbe court’s approval was a general, family settlement. This rule, in my opinion, should not be further extended to permit compromise settlements by a part of tbe heirs. Tbe solemn will of a testator, who is no longer present to defend tbe disposition of bis property, should not be disregarded at tbe whim of a few of those directly interested who do not favor tbe terms and conditions of tbe will. If tbe wishes of a testator are to be put at naught by those who survive him, it is a salutary rule which requires that all tbe persons interested shall be parties to tbe agreement. This, I take it, is one of tbe fundamental reasons why caveat proceedings are treated as matters in rem: “Tbe purpose is to determine tbe nature of tbe script for tbe benefit of all whom it may concern, and not specially for that of any particular person, whether be be before tbe court or not. Tbe proceeding — tbe script, tbe issue — are not of tbe persons before tbe court; tbey cannot control or direct tbe same as parties — that is tbe sole province of tbe court — as to tbe issue; tbey are not parties, and hence, whether tbey take part on one side or tbe other of it, tbey cannot take or suffer a judgment of nonsuit, nor can tbey dismiss tbe proceeding.” Merrimon, J., in Hutson v. Sawyer, 104 N. C., 1 (3).
As Ashe, J., pointed out in Syme v. Broughton, 85 N. C., 367 (369): “It may be readily seen bow easily tbe intentions of testators could be *160frustrated, and the grossest injustice and fraud practiced, if tbe actors in an issue of devisavit vel non should be permitted to exercise unrestricted control over the issue; for instance, the propounders, by collusion with the caveators, might offer the will, prove its execution according to the forms of the law and then defeat it by admitting the insanity of the testator or that the will was made under improper influence; and, on the other hand, a paper writing wanting in the requisites of a good will, having for example only one subscribing witness, might be established by the caveators simply admitting that it was executed according to the requirements of the statute.” As a practical matter, the rule of the majority is open to exactly the same objections. Admittedly, the propounder and the caveators here could not do directly (compromise by nonsuit the caveat proceedings) what the majority opinion permits them to do indirectly (compromise the caveat proceedings by withholding evidence in support of their sworn caveat). The quotations above make it abundantly clear that there is a public and general interest in the establishment of the validity of a will which is more extensive than the private interests of the two or three most active protagonists and antagonists in the caveat procee'ding. “It is the duty of the court as an obligation resting upon it as a court, as a duty ex officio, and for other reasons of public policy, to see to it that the wishes of the one who is no longer in existence as to the lawful disposition of that which was once his shall be fully carried out.” In re Staab's Estate, 166 N. W., 326 (327), 166 Wis., 587, holding that an agreement for a cash consideration not to contest a will confers no rights which will be enforced by the courts. An “agreement, followed by the withdrawal of the objections, and the willful omission of the objectors to submit to the court the proof as to the facts which had prompted them, in good faith, to raise material issues as to the execution and validity of the proposed will, in the status of which 'the whole world has an interest,’ resulted in the wrongful suppression, by collusion between them, of a judicial inquiry.” Taylor v. Hoyt, 242 N. W., 141 (142), 207 Wis., 520. Accordingly, the Taylor case, supra, is authority for the position that such an agreement will be stricken down by the courts to the end that an opportunity will be given the courts to consider the validity of the will without the suppression of any part of the pertinent evidence. For the same reason that private parties are not permitted to compromise criminal eases, in my opinion, the right of the interested parties to compromise- a will caveat should be a limited one, so restricted that only a compromise binding upon all of the interested parties will be permitted.
There is a second — and somewhat narrower — ground for challenging the view of the majority. In all the states — even those applying the *161most liberal rules permitting compromises of caveat proceedings — that is one condition which is universally enforced a. contestant cannot compromise anything beyond his own personal interest in the contest. . . .” 68 C. J., “Wills,” p. 909. The dominating purpose of the compromise upheld in the instant case was not merely to settle the rights of the parties to it; in express terms, the condition precedent of the contract was that the “will” be probated immediately. Such a result — the very purpose of the secret contract — directly affected the interests of plaintiffs, none of whom were parties to the agreement. Plaintiffs were entitled to assume that the propounder would be required to carry the burden of proof as to the formal execution of the will (In re Will of Chisman, 115 N. C., 420), yet, the propounder (through an agreement not known to the plaintiffs), in effect, relieved himself of any real burden in this respect by securing assurance through the agreement that such evidence as he offered would not be contested. When the effect of a particular view in a specific case is to accomplish a result which is technically correct but practically wrong, this Court should— as it has in the past (In re Will of Averett, 206 N. C., 234 [238])— look beyond form to the substance of the case.
As was written in In re Crawford’s Estate, 182 Atl., 252 (254), 320 Pa. St. Rep., 444: “Where contestants of a will receive money in virtue of a settlement of a contest, they may not exclude from a share therein one who is equally entitled, although not an active contestant of the will and not a party to the settlement.”
In my opinion, our decided cases furnish little support for the doctrine of this case which permits caveators to file a solemn caveat, sworn to as to the supporting facts, and thereafter — in return for a cash consideration — to withhold those facts from the court. I would be less than candid if I permitted what I regard as “bad law” to pass without a challenge into our reports.