Court Opinion

ID: 9790627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:56:14.911806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:30.562849
License: Public Domain

DAVISON, Justice
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion. The County Court of Pontotoc County and the District Court on appeal found that the testator did not have testa*387mentary capacity at the time the will was executed. In my opinion, from a review of the record, it cannot be said that the judgment of the trial court is clearly against the weight of the evidence.
The testimony of the witnesses was conflicting in many respects. The trial court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and to scrutinize their demeanor and interest or lack of interest in the contest.
The evidence shows that testator and his first wife lived together for many years hut that in 1942 friction arose between them, that being about the year in which testator and Mattie Nora Payne (now) Groves became acquainted with testator. Mattie was some 24 years younger than testator. In 1943 Mattie and her then husband moved to California. Thereafter Mattie and testator began writing love letters to each other. Testator loaned money to Mattie and her former husband. In April 1946, Mattie divorced her former husband and in January 1947, testator divorced his wife of long standing and in March 1947 testator and Mattie were married.
The evidence is conflicting as to the feeling that existed between the testator and his two natural sons after testator’s marriage to Mattie.
On the morning of April 10, 1953, the attending physician of testator called an attorney to consult with testator about the preparation of a will. Mattie had been with testator during the days before the execution of the will. The will was finally executed at approximately 4 P.M. on April 10, 1953.
On direct examination this physician testified as follows as to the condition of testator’s mind on the morning of April 10, 1953.
“Q. What was his condition of mind when you talked to him that morning, first? A. All right — quite satisfactory, normal.
“Q. Did he appear to realize the seriousness of his condition? A. Well, he certainly did, because he wanted to do something about it right then; I wanted him to — -I thought if he needed anything done that the best thing, probably, would be for him to talk to his own attorney — somebody he knew and who knew something about him, and felt that probably that would be what he would want to do but he wanted to go ahead and do it then and so he, more or less, ‘put me on the spot’ about it, and so I went ahead to see if I could find somebody that might discuss his legal problems with him.
“Q. Dr. Dunn, the testator, at that time — that first conversation, did he discuss with you then anything about what he wanted to do in the will? A. No, sir.”
'On cross-examination the “Progress Report” kept by Wesley Hospital but made by the above referred to attending physician in his own handwriting shows the following as to the mental condition of deceased on April 10, 1953:
“10 April 1953: pt. has not shown any improvement today — in fact he is worse. * * * ”
On April 9, 1953, the hospital records show the condition of deceased and that the sedatives administered to him were as follows:
“7:30 P.M. Luminal, 2 gr.
“9:00 P.M. 100 Milligrams of Demerol; patient nauseated
“12 Midnight Luminal, 2 gr., patient still nauseated and vomited bright green fluid
“April 10, 1953
“1:00 A.M. Patient vomited dark brown liquid — patient was cold, complained of being hot — perspired freely.
“1:30 A.M. Demerol, 100 Milligrams
“1:40 A.M. Supervisor was called to see patient
“2:00 A.M. Patient resting but respiration labored
“4:40 A.M. Demerol 75 Milligrams, given for rest
“7:00 A.M. Body very cold — right leg very discolored; temperature from *3888:15 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. in excess of 103°.”
The attending physician, Dr. D., also admitted on cross-examination, when confronted with the hospital records, that the testator had been on intravenous feedings almost constantly since his admission to the hospital. That he was pale and gray, or, an ashen color in appearance, from the date of his admission until April 10, 1953; and a greater part of the time his stomach was distended; and had an appearance of sunken eyes and was lifeless in activity for several days prior to April 10; and only moved when required by the doctor to move.
Dr. Coyne Campbell, an eminent mental specialist, testified as to' a hypothetical question, which question was based on actual facts introduced in evidence. Dr. Campbell’s testimony was as follows in answer to the following questions:
“Q. Now, in view of the fact, Doctor, the next question which I shall ask you is a detailed hypothetical question, which, at the conclusion of the question, it is necessary for you to answer the question ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ A. Okay.
“Q. Doctor, assume a man seventy-four years of age, a farmer, in prior good health, who in 'November 19, 1952 entered the hospital at Ada, Oklahoma, had an operation — a rib resection and drainage of left pleural cavity, and remained in the hospital until discharged on December 23, 1952; that he thereafter returned to the hospital at Ada on December 28, 1952 and had a second operation — rib resection and plastic fistula, remained in the hospital until discharged on January 25, 1953; that he thereafter returned to the hospital at Ada on March 22, 1953 with chronic empyema, and on March 24, 1953 was transferred by ambulance to the Wesley Hospital in Oklahoma City; that he thereafter and at 5:30 P.M., March 24, 1953, was admitted to the Wesley Hospital in Oklahoma City; that on his admission into the Wesley Hospital he was having chills, was acutely ill; blood pressure 190/90, pulse 132; respiration 20; skin, hot and dry; sensorium, appeared slightly cloudy; that on 3-26-53 he became ir-responsive rather suddenly, 15 minutes after receiving 100 milligrams of Demerol; that on March 28, 1953, he was operated a third time, no abscess was found; much edema in the pleural tissues. Following this operation, there was considerable distention of the stomach. That on April 7, 1953 the fourth operation was performed, a transverse colostomy, and a large carcinoma was found. That on April 9, 1953, he received the following sedatives : 7:30 P.M., luminal, 2 grains. 9 P.M. 100 milligrams of Demerol. 12 Midnight, luminal, 2 g-rains. April 10, 1953, 1:30 A.M., Demerol, 100 milligrams. 4:40 A.M. Demerol, 75 milligrams. That his temperature as 8 :15 A.M. on April 10, 1953, was rectally, 103, and at 2:30 P.M. 103.4, rectally. That an attorney was called at some time after 9:30 A.M. on April 10, 1953, and discussed the preparation of a will with the patient; and that thereafter, and at about 4 P.M. on April 10, 1953, the patient was elevated in his bed, and with the assistance of the attorney holding his hand, executed a purported will whereby the patient disinherited his only two sons who had worked on the farm and helped him to accumulate his property, and thereby, attempted to leave his estate, one-half to his second wife, whom he had married in 1947, and the remaining one-half to the grandchildren of the patient’s wife. Now, Doctor, assuming these facts to be true, do you have an opinion, based upon reasonably certainty, and from a medical point of view, as to whether the patient at the time of the execution of the above described instrument, or will, at approximately 4 P.M, on April 10, 1953, possessed the mental ability to know the nature and extent of his property, and to know and keep in mind the objects of his bounty *389and persons who would have a right to expect to receive his property on his death, and to know and understand that he was executing an instrument making disposition of his property, now, do you have an opinion?
* * * * * *
“A. Yes, I have.
“Q. What is that opinion, Doctor?
⅜ ⅝ ⅝ ;¡c ⅜ *
“A. May I have this chart, please?
“Q. Oh, yes, sure. A. In other words, I was just merely checking to see if you had overlooked more medications. This (indicating on chart) is a prescription that he was given in the muscle' — I don’t know what it was in addition to the other there. I will answer your question to the other there. I will answer your question by saying that I don’t think he was mentally competent.
* * * * * *
“Q. Now Doctor, in making your answer, have you had the benefit of examination of Contestants’ Exhibits 1, 1-A, 2-A and 3-A? A. Yes, sir, I have.
“Q. Do those exhibits to which I have referred, support the opinion which you have expressed as to the patient’s mental condition? A. Well, especially, the one that was the last exhibit mentioned, showing the patient’s definite mental and physical condition, and the rather large doses of sedatives that were given just the day before and on the day that he made the will; those, to me, are of most importance.
“Q. But you have had the benefit of all these exhibits which I have just mentioned. A. Yes, sir.”
Dr. Haugen, eminently qualified surgeon with specialty in urology, testified for contestants to the effect that he had seen the deceased in consultation, while deceased was in the hospital at Ada and based upon all the hospital records and including the doctor’s progress reports, and considering the huge amount of sedation given the deceased on the night of April 9th and morning of April 10th deceased was incompetent to make a will on April 10th, 1953. This doctor further testified that “ * * * a patient who had had that much sedation, one would expect his mentality would be blurred for some time * * * 12 to 24 hours * * *. A patient who had been ill and undergone this much surgery and had so much sedation, it doesn’t seem reasonable that he could transact business of this type.”
At 11:00 A.M., April 10, 1953, the day of the execution of the will, an electro-car-diogram was taken and it was found that the testator had a partial heart block.
The attending physician, Dr. D., had testified that the first time the making of a will was mentioned was at 9:30 A.M. on April 10, 1953. However the registered nurse, looking after testator, on cross-examination stated that in a discussion with other witnesses at 7:00 A.M. on April 10, 1953, stated “This is the day Mr. Groves is going to make his will.” Therefore the matter of making a will had undoubtedly been discussed on the day before. This nurse on this point testified as follows:
“Q. Ma’am, who was it you had the conversation with when you went on duty that morning, about ‘this is the day Mr. Groves is to make his Will’? A. Well, we all gathered around the desk for our report.
“Q.- What time did you go to work on the 10th day of April, 1953? A. I started at 7:00.
“Q. Seven O’clock. Had the matter of the making of the Will been discussed the day before? A. I said I don’t remember how I found out it was going to be done, but I remember saying that morning, ‘Well, this is the day Mr. Groves is going to make his Will’.
“Q. Well, you would have had to have gotten that information the day before, wouldn’t you, ma’am? A. I guess.
“Q. If you came on Duty at 7:00 o’clock in the morning? A. I said I *390don’t remember how I got the information.
“Q. Was it generally discussed on the floor that Mr. Groves was to make a Will that day? A. That day?
“Q. Yes. A. Of course, we would have to know because I work there.
“Q. Yes, Ma’am, but what I was trying to get at is how did you get the information at 7:00 o’clock in the morning that was the day on which he was to make a Will? A. Well, the doctor — I understood he had already talked to the patient and advised him to — if things weren’t in order for him to get them in order because it would probably be his last illness.
“Q. Who was his doctor, please, ma’am? A. Dr. Dunn.”
Considering the entire picture of the events leading up to the time of the execution of the will, I am of the opinion that there is substantial evidence to support the findings and judgment of the trial court and that the judgment is not clearly against the weight of the evidence. I am of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
I therefore respectfully dissent.