Court Opinion

ID: 9795025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:16:21.242725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:22:52.320254
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J.
In my opinion there is no substantial evidence whatever to support the verdict which is upheld by the decision in this case, and the facts upon which the jury determined that the disposition which the testatrix made of her property should be set aside fall far short of the requirements laid down by the heretofore unbroken rules relating to the proof necessary to set aside a will.
At least until the present decision, testimony showing that one had the opportunity to influence a testator, even where it was shown that he had the interest or motive to do so, has not been held to justify the invalidation of a will. (Estate of Gleason, 164 Cal. 756 [130 P. 872].) And even the evidence tending to prove that influence was exercised to procure the making of a will has been said to be an insufficient ground for setting it aside. ‘‘The mere fact that one person has been influenced by the arguments or entreaties of another is not enough to make the influence an undue one. It is not undue unless the pressure has reached a point where the mind of the person subjected to it gives way before it so that the action of such person taken in response to the pressure does not in.fact represent his conviction or desire, brought about perhaps by argument and entreaty, but represents in truth but the conviction or desire of another.” (Estate of Anderson, 185 Cal. 700, 707 [198 P. 407].)
*531According to the testimony of H. L. Ricks, the attorney who prepared the will of Mrs. Teel, it was written at her request and in accordance with her wishes. When she first came to his office she told him that she wished to make a will in favor of her husband, leaving nothing to her daughter. Her husband was with her at the time, but there is no evidence that the visit was made at his suggestion or direction. On the contrary, the evidence shows that on previous occasions Mrs. Teel had consulted other attorneys; at one time she secured legal advice when her husband was not present.
When she visited Mr. Ricks, he attempted to dissuade her from disinheriting her daughter and told her to go home and think the matter over. But from the information given to him at the time by Mr. and Mrs. Teel he prepared reciprocal wills, incorporating the provisions specified by them. Subsequently the two returned and executed these wills before Mr. Ricks and Selma G. Burgess as subscribing witnesses. Although the attorney did not talk to Mrs. Teel alone, and she and her husband were present when each will was signed, there was nothing in the conduct of the parties, Mr. Ricks testified, indicating any domination of Mrs. Teel by her husband. Mrs. Burgess also told the jury that the testatrix was not acting under duress, menace, fraud or undue influence.
Before consulting Mr. Ricks, the appellant and his wife had obtained other legal advice but there is no evidence to indicate that this was done at Mr. Teel’s solicitation. E. S. Mitchell, one of the attorneys consulted, testified that in 1940 Mrs. Teel called upon him at least twice in reference to the disposition of her property. Mr. Teel was probably present at one of these interviews, said Mr. Mitchell, but he did not participate in the conversation. At the other visit, the attorney talked to Mrs. Teel alone. She told him that she had received a letter from her daughter demanding a share of the estate of the girl’s father. Mrs. Teel asked if she was free to dispose of her property by will in accordance with her own wishes. The attorney advised her that she could do so, but the testimony does not indicate that he was asked to draw a will for her.
There is nothing in the testimony regarding her consultation with Delos A. Mace, the other attorney, to indicate that Mrs. Teel’s husband took her to his office. Mr. Mace testified that when she and Mr. Teel came to see him, and she stated *532the purpose of her visit, he took her into his private office, and that Mr. Teel did not participate in the conversation. Mrs. Teel said that she wanted to leave all of her property to her husband; very emphatically she stated that her daughter was not to receive anything. After a discussion of the matter she said that she would think the matter over but she did not return.
In support of the jury’s finding of undue influence, the contestant calls attention to the prenuptial agreement of Mr. Teel and the testatrix to make reciprocal wills, each naming the other as sole beneficiary, as evidence that he married her for her money. Emphasis is also laid upon the testimony showing that when Mr. Teel and his wife went to the office of Mr. Ricks, Mr. Teel discussed with her and the attorney the terms of the wills and the deeds which were also to be prepared. At that time he had with him certain documents and he made arrangements to provide the attorney with the legal descriptions of property. The contestant also points out that Mr. Teel later telephoned to the attorney on several occasions to inquire if the documents had been written; he was present when the will of his wife was executed and took possession of the deeds which were signed at that time. Because there was a confidential relationship between Mr. Teel and his wife, it is argued, and he unduly profited by the will which was obtained under those circumstances, the verdict rests upon substantial evidence.
But to set aside a solemnly executed will, upon the ground of undue influence, the appellate courts of this state have repeatedly held that a contestant must show coercion destroying free agency upon the part of the testator. (Estate of Keegan, 139 Cal. 123 [72 P. 828].) Evidence of opportunity, even if coupled with a motive to influence the testamentary act is not sufficient. (Estate of Kilborn, 162 Cal. 4 [120 P. 762].) Nor does proof of circumstances consistent with the exercise of undue influence meet the law’s requirements; the facts relied upon must be inconsistent with voluntary action on the part of the testator. (Estate of Donovan, 114 Cal.App. 228 [299 P. 816].) And the evidence must show more than general influence, however strong and controlling; influence which invalidates the instrument must be “a pressure which overpowered the mind and bore down the volition of the testator at the very time the will was made.” (Estate of Carithers, *533156 Cal. 422, 428 [105 P. 127]; Estate of Gleason, supra, at p. 765; other cases stating and applying this rule are Estate of Hopkins, 136 Cal.App. 590, 602-603 [29 P.2d 249]; In re Calkins, 112 Cal. 296 [44 P. 577]; Estate of Clark, 170 Cal. 418, 424 [149 P. 828] ; Estate of Anderson, supra, at pp. 707-708.) In short, as this court very recently said, “it is necessary to show that the influence was such as, in effect, to destroy the testator’s free agency and substitute for his own another person’s will.” (Estate of Arnold, 16 Cal.2d 573, 577 [107 P.2d 25].) And although, since the decision in Estate of Baird, 176 Cal. 381 [168 P. 561], when one stands in a confidential relation to a testator and has participated in procuring the execution of a will by which he unduly profits as a beneficiary a presumption of undue influence arises, the rule strictly requires the concurrence of each of these factors. However unnatural a will may appear to be with regard to the natural objects of a testator’s bounty, said this conrt in upholding the Baird will, such fact is not alone sufficient to sustain a finding of nndue influence. Nor is evidence of a confidential relation alone sufficient. “There must be activity on the part of the beneficiary in the matter of the preparation of the will.” (P. 384.)
A further restriction upon the rule giving the contestant of a will the benefit of a presumption of undue influence under the circumstances which have been stated was made by the District Court of Appeal when it declared: “The instances will be found rare where our Supreme Court has permitted a will to be upset solely upon the ground of undue influence where the charges have been made against the husband or wife. No presumption is permitted to be indulged against this relation in this state, and it is not permitted in most other jurisdictions.” (Estate of Carson, 74 Cal.App. 48, 65 [239 P. 364].) This conclusion was, in part, based upon the ease of In re Langford, 108 Cal. 608 [41 P. 701], where it was said that a wife may justly influence the making of her husband’s will for her own benefit so long as she does not act fraudulently. “Accordingly, the circumstance that the testator’s wife urged upon him the propriety of leaving his property to her does not constitute undue influence to vitiate the will. . . . And the mere fact that the will of the husband is changed to gratify the wishes of the wife does not raise a presumption of undue influence on her part. ... In order to *534set aside a will for undue influence, there must be substantial proof of a pressure which overpowered the volition of the testator at the time the will was made.” (P. 623.)
But disregarding the limitation which has been applied in the marital relation, I can find no substantial evidence either that Mr. Teel procured the preparation and execution of the will in his favor or that he unduly profited by it. It has been held that active participation in procuring the execution of a will cannot be inferred from the mere fact that the beneficiary accompanied the testator to the office where the will was drawn. (Estate of Morcel, 162 Cal. 188 [121 P. 733]; Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367 [35 P.2d 614].) And in Estate of Shay, 196 Cal. 355 [237 P. 1079], this court, in reversing a judgment revoking probate of a will, said that the participation of the testator’s children in procuring the execution of the instrument was not shown by evidence that a son, at his sister’s request, mentioned the will to his father; that his father thereupon requested him to take notes and give them to a friend for preparation of the will; that he delivered the notes as requested and thereafter procured a copy of the will which he read to his father, who declared himself satisfied with its provisions; and that he then arranged for the execution of the will but was not present when the instrument was signed. In the present case, the evidence of participation by the beneficiary shows much less activity than that of either Shay’s son or daughter.
Also the fact that the testatrix had more property than her husband and the value of his distributable interest under the will is more than she would have received had he predeceased her does not supply the factor of undue profit within the meaning of the rule. Even had Mrs. Teel left no will, her husband would have taken one-half of her estate under the laws of succession (Prob. Code, § 221); and as they had also executed joint tenancy deeds of their real property which constituted a considerable portion of Mrs. Teel’s estate, the amount by which Mr. Teel benefited by the will is not large, even accepting contestant’s valuation of her estate at the time the will was executed as being approximately $24,000.
A will cannot be set aside upon the sole ground that it is unjust or unnatural (Estate of Martin, 170 Cal. 657, 663 [151 P. 138]) and an unfair or unjust will creates of itself no presumption of incompeteney or undue influence (Estate of Smith, *535200 Cal. 152, 160 [252 P. 325]; Estate of Putnam, 1 Cal.2d 162 [34 P.2d 148]). Moreover, a will that favors a spouse over an adult daughter is not necessarily unnatural. This is especially true, as in the present case, where the daughter is a married woman, living with her husband, is self supporting and not dependent upon her mother. (Estate of Stone, 172 Cal. 215, 222 [155 P. 992].)
For these reasons, in my opinion, the judgment should be reversed.
Traynor, J., concurred.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied January 25, 1945. Edmonds, J., Traynor, J., and Spence, J., voted for a rehearing.