Court Opinion

ID: 9689266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:26:39.927045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:46.571569
License: Public Domain

BERNDT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The key issue here is whether the original will of decedent was proved as a lost will, pursuant to SDCL 30-6-27. I would hold that it was not, and respectfully dissent.
In addition to proof of due execution and contents of a lost will, the proponent has *900the burden of proving the impossibility of producing the original will and the non-revocation of the will by the testator.
Before evidence of the contents of an allegedly lost will may be admitted, some reasonable explanation must be given for its nonproduction. The reason for its nonproduction may be shown by either direct or circumstantial evidence. . . . Generally, however, the loss of a will is shown by circumstantial evidence that a diligent search was made for the will in every place that it might logically be expected to be found, and that it was not found in any of these places.
14 Am.Jur. Proof of Facts § 3 (1964). As to non-revocation, SDCL 30-6-27 requires that the lost will be proved to have been in existence at the time of the death of the testator, or is shown to have been fraudulently destroyed in the lifetime of the testator.
Thus, the burden of proof of nonrevocation is on the proponent of a lost will shown to have been duly executed and in the possession of, or readily accessible to, the testator, or which was not shown to have been in the possession of another at the time of its loss, in order to overcome the rebuttable presumption of revocation which prevails in such instances.
80 Am.Jur .2d Wills § 1075 (1975).
The presumption that an instrument offered for probate, which is proved to have been validly executed as a will, continued unrevoked as a validly executed will is not present in a proceeding to establish a lost will, the presumption then being, at least where the will was in the possession of the testator, or accessible to him, that it has been revoked by the testator, the very fact that the will cannot be found being regarded as tending to show that the testator destroyed the will animo revocandi. However, such presumption is not conclusive, but may be overcome by proper and sufficient proof that the testator did not revoke the will.
Annot., 3 A.L.R.2d 951 (1949).
Stringent requirements for proof of lost or destroyed wills are imposed to avoid fraud, and the court should proceed with extreme care in the matter of proving a lost will. 95 C.J.S. Wills § 419 (1957). Statutes relating to the proof of lost wills or destroyed wills are mandatory, and may not be disregarded. Day v. Williams, 184 Okl. 117, 85 P.2d 306 (1938).
The lower court found that proponent had personally, and through the services of his attorneys, performed a diligent and exhaustive search for the original will. The only evidence as to search was by the proponent, John Modde, who testified that he looked for the original will by talking to Attorney Phillips’ son and to a Roger Schiager, neither of whom had any information. The only other action proponent took was to hire an attorney. The record is devoid of evidence of a further search, by either proponent or his attorney. To approach what could even be considered a diligent search would surely require a search of the records of the clerk of courts and an attempt to determine what happened to the files of Attorney Phillips after his death, not to mention an effort to determine what happened to the personal effects of decedent. I would hold this finding to be clearly erroneous.
The proffered copy is not a carbon copy of the original will. It is purported to be a carbon copy of a typed copy, which does not even have the name of the testator typed on the line reserved for his signature. That line is blank on the proffered copy.
The lower court also found as follows:
That the original Last Will and Testament of Charles T. Modde was left with the Decedent’s attorney, B. W. Phillips, and thereafter was lost and cannot be found, but was in existence at the death of the Decedent on September 23, 1978. That the Will was not thereafter returned to the Decedent nor was the Will readily accessible to the Decedent.
There is no evidence whatever to establish what happened to the original will, or that it was in existence at the time of death. We are. left with inferences only. “[Wjhile a court is at liberty to draw all the *901inferences which logically and naturally follow from proven facts, it cannot infer facts not proven.” In re Taylor’s Estate, 39 S.D. 608, 613, 165 N.W. 1079, 1080 (1917). The record shows that decedent managed his own affairs for some ten years after the death of Attorney Phillips. Even if Phillips were presumed to have kept the original will, it was readily available to decedent, as he often visited at Phillips’ office, and he had ample opportunity to have a new will drafted if the original became unavailable after Phillips’ death in February 1958. This finding is clearly erroneous.
Although I concur in the majority holding that decedent had validly executed a written will, circumstances surrounding execution of this will were lax, at best. Secretary Gillen’s direct testimony was that she would be called into Phillips’ office to witness the signing of a document. She went on to testify: “I can’t even say it was a will at the time... . ” This hardly complies with SDCL 29-2-6 relating to the requirements of subscription, acknowledgment, and attestation.
I am authorized to state that Justice FOSHEIM joins in this dissent.