Court Opinion

ID: 9558077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:02:34.22032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:13.486345
License: Public Domain

WALTERS, Judge (dissenting). I do not agree with the majority opinion in the following particulars: 1. There is a distinction between the court having discretion to order a trial by jury if the parties have failed to make a timely demand when the issues are those covered by New Mexico Rule 38, and when the court may order a trial by an advisory jury, or a jury trial by consent of both parties (Rule 39(b) as opposed to Rule 39(b)). There is no constitutional nor common law right to trial by jury in probate matters, see Sheley v. Shafer, 35 N.M. 358, 370, 298 P. 942 (1931); State v. Ninth Judicial District, 40 N.M. 331, 334, 59 P.2d 893 (1936); Frock v. Fowlie, 80 N.M. 506, 507, 458 P.2d 581 (1969). The right to a jury trial in a probate matter is now conferred by § 45-1-306, N.M.S.A. 1978, if timely demanded. Rule 39(a) may not be read to grant the trial court the right to order a trial by jury upon its own motion. Rule 39(b) allows the court to call an advisory jury “upon motion or of its own initiative.” The absence of the language “or of its own initiative” in Rule 39(a) requires that “upon motion” in Rule 39(a) mean “motion of one of the parties.” The motion for jury trial made by a protestor to the will in this case apparently was denied, since the order allowing a jury explicitly recites that trial by jury was ordered by the court on its own motion. I do not read Rule 39 to grant the discretion to the trial court to act upon its own motion except to order an advisory jury. 2. I do not agree that McKee’s testimony had anything to do with the existence of undue influence in July of 1979, which would permit New Mexico to rely on the quotation from Page to sustain its admission. Thorp’s alleged non-performance of employment duties to McKee, and Thorp’s conversation regarding McKee’s business with McKee’s children, are totally unrelated to the exertion of any influence by Thorp over Hazel, or to the “disposition to exert undue influence” on her. In re McNamara’s Will, the New York case cited in the majority opinion, was based upon language in the case of In re Frank’s Estate, 165 Misc. 411, 1 N.Y.S.2d 482 (1937), in which other New York cases were quoted to the effect that the declarations, written or oral, of the testator are admissible as bearing upon the decedent’s mental capacity and the condition of the testator’s mind regarding the objects of his bounty, and to show the testator’s relations to those around him and the persons named as beneficiaries. “They are, however, entitled to no weight in proving external acts, either fraud or undue influence” and are admissible “only for the limited purpose of showing the strength or weakness of the testator’s mind. They may not be extended to show affirmative or external proof of undue influence.” Mr. McKenzie’s evidence was tendered “to show the relationship, the trust and confidence between decedent and Mr. Thorp, and secondly * * * matters ancillary to that.” Some of McKenzie’s evidence showed testator’s relationship to Thorp, but McKenzie’s interpretation of that relationship (if that is “ancillary”) is not allowed by the New York cases uppn which the majority opinion relies. Additionally, the jury was not instructed that it would be permitted to hear such testimony for the limited allowable purposes of such testimony. Protestant’s counsel further argued that the evidence would show that the “confidential relationship is used for self-serving purposes by Mr. Thorp.” That purpose is not recognized by either the New York cases or by Page. The jury was instructed that “undue influence, in order to make a will void, must be directly connected with its execution and must operate at the time it was made. McKee’s evidence had nothing to do with undue influence at the time the will was made. Moreover, counsel stated in his opening statement at trial that testator’s incoherence and incapacity at the time of executing the will was not a contention in the proceeding. Under the above criteria, certainly McKee’s evidence was not admissible for any purpose relevant to the questions in this case. McKenzie’s testimony, as stated by the majority, “sheds light on the relationship between the testatrix and a primary beneficiary” at the time of the events testified to by McKenzie regarding the lease he was attempting to negotiate. It does indicate “an ongoing relationship” and “the extent to which Hazel trusted Thorp up to the time of her death,” but those factors are not at all concerned with whether Thorp unduly influenced Hazel at the time the will was executed four to six months earlier. Nothing in the evidence of either McKee and McKenzie concerned a declaration of the testator which would have been probative of her state of mind at the time she executed the will. Thus, (a) I do not believe that the evidence of McKee and McKenzie was properly limited or offered for a purpose recognized under own Rules of Evidence, and its prejudice outweighed any relevance to the issue to be decided; (b) evidence of Thorp’s character, as testified to by McKee, was inadmissible under State v. Bazan, 90 N.M. 209, 561 P.2d 482 (Ct.App.1977). It is illogical to conclude, as the majority opinion seems to do, that character evidence of a beneficiary may be admitted in an undue influence situation, at the same time as the opinion recognizes that such evidence is not an element of undue influence. The opinion discusses the “disposition to exert undue influence,” which is not an element in New ft^xico, yet concludes that such evidence was “properly admitted.” I am unable to follow such reasoning. If McKenzie’s and McKee’s testimony relating to Thorp’s character is intended to be declared admissible because it shows Thorp’s actions in conformity therewith, such a ruling of admissibility is contrary to New Mexico law. See N.M.R.Evid. 404(b). I would reverse this case on the grounds that inadmissible evidence was admitted, and that the trial court was without authority to order a jury trial on its own motion. The majority holding otherwise, I respectfully dissent.