Court Opinion

ID: 9728107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:58:50.371591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:36.146045
License: Public Domain

Sidner, District Judge,
dissenting.
At the close of the plaintiff’s evidence herein the defendant moved for a directed verdict, setting forth several grounds. One ground was that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The majority opinion holds that the action as brought was not barred. With this and all other statements of law in that opinion I concur.
It is with this in mind that a review of the evidence is necessary as presented in this case to determine *410whether defendant’s motion for a directed verdict on grounds that the evidence is insufficient to establish a legal contract upon which a claim can be based should be sustained.
Under the facts in this case, plaintiff, who is the nephew and stepson of decedent, was working in a cafe as a dishwasher. Decedent had a large family, consisting of children by a former marriage, children by his present marriage to the mother of the claimant, and a group of children that fell in the same class of the claimant, being nephews and nieces and stepchildren of the deceased.
There is only one piece of evidence to substantiate the claim of any contract. This is the statement of claimant’s wife, and she is the only witness who testifies in the case as; to any material element. She states that the decedent asked the claimant to come and help' him operate his farms during the war years when he was short of help, and that on that basis he would promise to remember claimant in his will. Claimant moved onto his mother’s farm and remained there for a period of 10 years from 1941 to 1951. During this time he maintained a living, educated his children, learned the trade of sheep' shearing, and spent, during the last 5 years they lived on the place, much of his. time on this occupation of his. own. Only once during the time that they lived on the farm did the claimant ask for more money than had been given him by the decedent, and he was given the same answer, that he would be remembered in the will.
In 1951 claimant left because there were too many children back on the farm. He had enough cattle and was furnished enough machinery for his. use by the decedent. He was able to commence his own farming operations. No claim was ever made from, that date until decedent’s death in 1962, and when claimant was left out of the will this claim was filed.
As stated in the syllabus in this case in the majority *411opinion, there is a presumption of gratuity which is said to exist with reference to services rendered between closely related persons, and this is in proportion to the degree and nature of the family relationship. Also, that in order to overcome such presumption there must exist clear and satisfactory evidence. Starting with these legal propositions, and the facts as set forth above, the majority opinion cites the case of In re Estate of Baker, 144 Neb. 797, 14 N. W. 2d 585, 155 A. L. R. 950, in support of its conclusion. The Baker case differs from the one at hand in that as to the contract for services there was ample proof by letters, telegrams, and so forth of the promise to pay. Services were rendered up to the date of the death of deceased, the person rendering the services was a nephew who left a profitable business to operate a large business enterprise, and this was not a contract to will, it was a contract for pay for services.
We think that the facts in this case are much more similar to the case of In re Estate of Olson, 167 Neb. 799, 95 N. W. 2d 128. The court there states that where a claim was not made or presented until after the death of the person for whom the services were rendered, and a long period of time has elapsed, the claim should be viewed with suspicion, and evidence to establish a claim must be other than mere loose declarations and must clearly and distinctly establish a contract between the claimant and the decedent. Particularly strong and here is a relationship of father and son. We have a stale or either the services extended over a considerable period of time and no demand for compensation was ever made during decedent’s lifetime.
What we seek to do here is to set aside a written instrument — the will of the decedent, and more especially, one which has been executed with formality. To do so, we need clear and convincing evidence. What we have here is a relationship of father and son. We have a stale claim. We have no supporting evidence by any outsider as found in the Baker case, supra.
*412As the legal proposition. is stated in the Olson case, supra, before the evidence is submitted to the jury, there is a preliminary question for the court to decide, when properly raised, not whether there is literally no evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury can properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the burden of proof is imposed.
These facts would seem to bring this under the rule that there are literally no- facts from which a jury co.uld find that there was clear and convincing proof of the contract to will.
Therefore, it is my conclusion that the judgment of the district court is correct and it should be affirmed.