Court Opinion

ID: 9724460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:57:12.221401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:00.607181
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion herein for the reason that I think the opinion, in attempting to overrule long-settled authority, is bringing confusion to our law.
A reading of the wills herein convinces me that they were intended to serve but one purpose, the one contended for by the appellants. The wills were the same except for the change of names. The opinion could give an erroneous impression when it says that Elizabeth Middaugh took all of Frank’s property given her by the will, pursuant to the terms of the will. Frank Middaugh’s will, which was admitted to probate March 16, 1953, gave his motor vehicles, household goods, furniture, and personal belongings to his wife, Elizabeth Middaugh. The balance of his estate was given to two trustees, with directions to pay the income to Elizabeth during her lifetime. The will then, so far as here material, provided:
“E. If my said wife predeceases me or, having survived me, dies, my said trustee or their successors shall distribute said trust property and any other property which I might own at the time of my death to my nephews and nieces and to the nephews and nieces of my wife, Elizabeth Middaugh, share and share alike. It is my intention that the division of my property is to be made to the nephews and nieces of my said wife and myself who are living at the date of the death of my wife or to the issue of any deceased nephew or niece. The issue of any deceased nephew and niece of mine or my wife’s shall take the share the parent would have taken if living. It is my intention that there shall be no vesting of this remainder in any nephew or niece of my wife or of myself until the date of the death of my wife and until said date the interest of said nephew or niece shall not be subject to alienation of any kind and no notices in connection with the administration of said trust shall be *19required to be given to any nephew or or niece or to any survivor of any nephew or niece.”
Elizabeth received the income so long as she lived. At her death, the trustees distributed Frank’s estate to the nieces and nephews of Frank and Elizabeth, in accordance with the provisions of the will.
It is of interest to note that as a part of the transaction resulting in the wills, on the advice of counsel, the property of the parties, some of which was held jointly and some of which was held separately, was divided equally between the parties and the reciprocal wills were made.
The opinion holds: “Although there is evidence of an oral agreement, the effect of which is to make the reciprocal wills irrevocable, there is no proof of part performance sufficient to remove the bar of the statute of frauds.”
I suggest Frank completely performed and that Elizabeth accepted the benefits of that performance until her death. That performance included the provision made for her nieces and nephews in consideration of a like promise she made for Frank’s nieces and nephews. The division of the property between the parties as a part of the contract in the reciprocal wills providing for the conveyance of the remainder interest in Frank’s property to Elizabeth’s nieces and nephews certainly indicates to me a substantial part performance within the ambit of our cases.
This case is in no respect analogous to Eagan v. Hall, 159 Neb. 537, 68 N. W. 2d 147. In the Eagan case, the property was conveyed to the spouse with full power to sell and convey, with only the balance remaining undisposed of at the death of the survivor going to the heirs. Clearly that will did not necessarily purport an agreement. The instant case is entirely different. Here the wife receives only the income, with no right to encroach on principal, which is held by trustees, and one-*20half of the corpus at her death vests in her own nieces and nephews.
Wyrick v. Wyrick, 162 Neb. 105, 75 N. W. 2d 376, involved a joint will which contained the provision: “ ‘In the event the one surviving should re-marry, the deceased (sic) interest is due and payable to his or her heirs.’ ” The survivor did remarry, and immediately closed up his wife’s estate, under the provision of the will cited above, and paid the remaining portion of his wife’s estate to her heirs as provided in the will. That case contemplated the situation which happened, and is not in any sense analogous to the instant one.
I am in full agreement with the statement that in a suit to enforce an oral agreement within the statute of frauds, on the ground of part performance, the part performance must refer to, result from, or be in pursuance of the oral contract sought to be enforced and not from some other limitation. In this case, however, I am unable- to see any basis to account for the performance herein except on that of performance of the oral contract. It seems apparent to me that the only basis on which Frank Middaugh would have left one-half of his estate to his wife’s nieces and nephews was pursuant to the contract.
I would say that the rule to be applied is that set forth in our opinion in Overlander v. Ware, 102 Neb. 216, 166 N. W. 611, as follows: “In considering cases of this character, where one is claiming the estate of a person deceased under an alleged oral contract, the evidence of such contract and the terms of it must be clear, satisfactory and unequivocal. Such contracts are on their face void as within the statute of frauds, because not in writing, and, even though proved by clear and satisfactory evidence, they are not enforceable unless there has been such performance as the law requires. The thing done, constituting performance, must be such as is referable solely to the contract sought to be enforced, and not such as might be referable to some other and different contract — something that the claimant would not have *21done unless on account of the agreement and with the direct view to its performance — so that nonperformance by the other party would amount to fraud upon him.” The performance herein to me can only be referred to the contract sought to be enforced.
I am in full agreement with appellants that the cases of Brown v Webster, 90 Neb. 591, 134 N. W. 185, 37 L. R. A. N. S. 1196, and Mack v. Swanson, 140 Neb. 295, 299 N. W. 543, support their position. I certainly do not believe that we should overrule Brown v. Webster, supra, which has been the law in this jurisdiction for more than 50 years, which 53 years ago followed the majority rule in the country, and which still is the rule in a vast majority of the jurisdictions, without some compelling reasons.
Brown v. Webster, supra, came to this court on a demurrer to the petition. The court did not anticipate the evidence, and the opinion is not mere dicta. It followed the rule that a demurrer admits all facts well pleaded. Assuming the facts as established, for the purposes of the demurrer, it laid down the law applicable to those facts. The following discussion and authorities from that case may be of interest here: “It is not a question, therefore, of whether or not the execution of the wills aided an oral contract; the question is, were the wills an integral and important part of the contract? We held that they were, and that from the moment the wills were executed the contract no longer rested entirely in parol. We also think it would be doing violence to every rule of equity to hold that the contract of each, of which the will was a part, was not a good consideration for the contract of the other. We think the consideration of each was both a good and valuable consideration; but, even if it were to be held that it did not constitute a valuable consideration, in the sense that no money was paid or property delivered or personal services performed by the one to or for the other, the contract would still be enforceable for the reason that it was supported *22by a good consideration. Conceding that a contract by A to make a will in favor of B, that upon A’s death he would leave all of his property to B, could not be enforced by B, as against the creditors of A, or as against those having a superior equity to B, yet, if there are no creditors and no one possessing superior equities to B, then a good consideration would be sufficient to entitle B to enforce the contract after A’s death. Parsell v. Stryker, 41 N. Y. 480, 485; Underhill, Law of Wills, sec. 285. That a contract to devise real estate, where there has been performance by the promisee, is good in this state is settled in this court by Kofka v. Rosicky, 41 Neb. 328; Teske v. Dittberner, 65 Neb. 167, 70 Neb. 544; Peterson v. Estate of Bauer, 76 Neb. 652; Peterson v. Bauer, 83 Neb. 405; Pemberton v. Heirs of Pemberton, 76 Neb. 669; Harrison v. Harrison, 80 Neb. 103; Cobb v. Macfarland, 87 Neb. 408; Johnson v. Riseberg, ante, p. 217. That the execution of the wills satisfied the statute of frauds, see Brinker v. Brinker, 7 Pa. St. 53; Shroyer v. Smith, 204 Pa. St. 310; Keith v. Miller, 174 Ill. 64; Bruce v. Moon, 57 S. Car. 60, 35 S. E. 415. That the will of deceased was not, in equity, ambulatory or revokable (sic), see Teske v. Dittberner, 70 Neb. 544, where, in the seventh paragraph of the syllabus1, we held: ‘A contract to leave property by will is not ambulatory or revocable, as being testamentary in character, after the promisee has performed his part of the contract.’ See, also, Bolman v. Overall, 80 Ala. 451; Johnson v. Hubbell, 2 Stock. Ch. (N. J.) 332; and Rivers v. Executors of Rivers, 3 Desaus. Eq. (S. Car.) 190, where it is said: ‘By this agreement (to- make a will of a particular tenor) he has renounced that absolute power of disposing of his estate at his pleasure, or even at his. caprice, with which the law had clothed him; and I cannot doubt that he could bind himself to do so. * * * A man may renounce every power, benefit, or right, which the laws give him, and he would be bound by his agreement to do so, provided the agreement be entered into fairly, without *23surprise, imposition, or fraud, and that it be reasonable and moral. * * * It appears to me that to make a will in a particular way, on proper considerations, is as much a subject of contract as any other; and he who makes a contract on this subject is as much bound thereby as he would be by any agreement on any other subject.’ See, also, Bruce v. Moon, 57 S. Car. 60, 71; Parsell v. Stryker, 41 N. Y. 480, 486, 487. The contention that plaintiff parted with nothing, that the manner in which she permitted her husband to manage and control her estate and take title to property in his own name and hold the same and the proceeds from sales thereof, after the execution of the contract, was not different from the manner in which she had permitted him to handle her property prior to its execution, does not impress us as being of any force. The fact is admitted that, at all times after the execution of the contract, she in good faith relied upon it by permitting her will to remain as originally executed, without any attempt at modification or revocation.”
Supplementing the quotation from Mack v. Swanson, 140 Neb. 295, 299 N. W. 543, in the opinion, I quote the following: “The question to be determined on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to prove an oral agreement by husband and wife to make reciprocal wills. After those instruments were duly and legally executed by both husband and wife without fraud of any kind, a prior oral contract to do so was provable without direct evidence. Both husband and wife were competent to make testamentary disposition of their property. What they in fact did in that particular is evidence of their previous mutual voluntary purpose. Circumstances may evidence a prior, oral agreement for reciprocal wills as well as direct testimony. * * * These wills were drawn at the same time, the only difference between them being changes in names and in references of each to the other. They were signed and witnessed by the same persons at the same time and place a few days after they were *24drawn. The witnesses to the wills certified that the husband declared in their presence and hearing that the instrument signed by him was his last will and testament and that his wife made a similar declaration. The executed wills were kept in a strong box accessible to both until after the death of her husband. The wills themselves, the definite purpose stated therein as to where the residue of the property of both should go upon the death of both and the surrounding circumstances, evidence a previous mutual agreement by husband and wife to make the irrevocable testamentary disposition of their property disclosed by the written instruments of identical import. Friends of William F. Mack testified he had at times expressed the purpose of himself and wife to make reciprocal wills, leaving the residue of their property upon the death of both to the heirs of both. The attorney who drew the reciprocal wills testified to the effect that William F. Mack and wife came to his office together; that the husband explained in the presence and hearing of the three of them the mutual plan to leave the residue of their property to the heirs of both, and that pursuant to directions he dictated the wills to a stenographer who read them to both husband and wife and that they both expressed satisfaction therewith. The evidence and circumstances summarized are uncontradicted. For the purposes of equity the oral agreement is fully established. For such purposes the oral agreement and the reciprocal wills should be treated as different parts of a single contract. The mutual promises of the parties amount to sufficient considerations. Performance of the oral contract by both parties during the remainder of the husband’s life and the mutual writings pursuant to such oral contract clear the transactions from the statute of frauds. The rules of law and equity observed herein are well established in this state as well as in many other jurisdictions. Brown v. Webster, 90 Neb. 591, 134 N. W. 185, and the cases cited therein.”
I cannot agree with the conclusion in the proposed *25opinion that the oral agreement sought to be enforced is barred by the statute of frauds. In this finding the trial court erred.
Brower, J., joins in this dissent.