Court Opinion

ID: 9518509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:54:49.843663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:22.748655
License: Public Domain

Dieterich, J.
The testator, Wellington B. Barnes, died a resident of Adams county, October 11, 1959, at the age of eighty-seven.
The deceased lived on a farm in Adams county for many years with his sister, Mary Barnes. When she died in June, 1952, he succeeded as surviving joint tenant to real estate and securities in the amount of $160,000. In September, 1952, at the age of about eighty, he married for the first time. His wife died in 1956.
Barnes lived at the Oxford Rest Home for about five months from November 30, 1958, until sometime in April, 1959. From April 4, 1959, to October 11, 1959, he made his home with the Lester Garbarski family near Oxford, Wisconsin.
*646His only surviving heir-at-law is Myrtle Marks, a first cousin.
The record discloses that Barnes had signed six different wills, dated April 28, 1955; July 14, 1956; April 29, 1957; July 18, 1957; May 7, 1958; November 29, 1958; and a codicil dated February 14, 1959. James F. Ploran was the scrivener and attorney drafting these wills. He also became, under the terms of the final will and codicil, the principal beneficiary. In the first will, Horan was bequeathed the sum of $12,633; the second, third, and fourth, the sum of $22,633; the fifth, the sum of $32,133; and the sixth, the sum of $46,500. All wills gave him a share of the residue.
While Ploran’s share of the will increased, others had their shares decreased or eliminated. Mrs. Marks, his cousin who was bequeathed $24,383, plus a share in the residue, was reduced to a total of $500 by the fourth instrument. Mrs. Elizabeth A. Hover, a daughter of a cousin of the testator, was to receive $14,383 under the first will, but was excluded by the sixth will in which Mr. Horan’s share increased by $14,367. Leon and Vera Durfey took care of the decedent for six to eight years before his death, were bequeathed $10,000 in the first will and in the second through the sixth instruments were also beneficiaries of a farm valued at $10,000. They were excluded by the codicil to the last will which had the effect of increasing the residue in which Mr. Horan would share. William Anderson, a friend of decedent of forty years, was bequeathed $10,000 in the second, third, and fourth instruments, but was cut to $500 in the fifth instrument of May 7, 1958, which at the same time increased Horan’s share by $9,500, the exact difference. Anderson testified that in September, 1959, decedent told him that he would receive “ten grand.”
The propounded will is contested by Myrtle Marks, a first cousin of the half blood of the deceased, and by Elizabeth Hover, a first cousin once removed of the deceased. *647Leon and Vera Durfey, who are not related to the deceased, filed objections to the codicil. The codicil under date of February 14, 1959, deleted Leon and Vera Durfey as de-visees and legatees under the codicil.
The primary issue in this case is whether under the evi-dentiary facts, the propounded will was duly executed so as to constitute a valid instrument.
The principal contention of the contestants and appellants, based on the testimony of the witnesses to the will and codicil, is that the codicil was read to Mr. Barnes before he signed it, but that the will was neither read to him nor by him prior to the signing.
Edmond Roseberry, one of the witnesses to the sixth and last will drawn by Mr. Horan, at the hearing for proof of the will, testified:
“Q. Mr. Roseberry, on the 29th day of November, 1958, was there any conversation between Mr. 'Horan and Mr. Barnes in reference to the will? A. Well, when we went out there to witness, Mr. Horan asked him if this will had been made up the way he wanted it and said, ‘Mr. Barnes, is this your last will, etc.,’ before he signed it, before we signed it. . . .
“Q. Then isn’t it a fact that Mr. Horan said to Mr. Barnes in effect this is the way you want it and handed him the will for signature? A. Yes, ‘Mr. Barnes, is this your last will, etc., I have prepared it the way you wanted it.’
“Q. Did Mr. Horan read it to Mr. Barnes? A. Not in my presence.
“Q. Did Mr. Barnes read it himself? A. I don’t believe so.
“Q. Mr. Barnes just subscribed his signature to it, is that correct? A. Yes.
"Q. You subscribed your signature to it did you? A. Yes.
“(Q. Did you leave then? A. Yes.
“Q. I presume Mr. Barnes said good-by and you said good-by and that was the extent of the conversation, is that correct? A. Yes, as I recall. . . .
*648“Q. Just prior to the time that Mr. Barnes signed this document which is the will marked Exhibit 2 were any questions asked by Mr. Horan and Mr. Barnes before the document was signed? ... A. He asked Mr. Barnes if this was his last will, if Mr. Horan had made it up the way he wanted it.
“Q. What did Mr. Barnes say? A. He said it was.
“Q. Then what was done? A. Then he signed his name to it and then Mr. Hartwig signed, and then I signed.”
Norman C. Hartwig, another witness to the sixth and last will, testified as follows:
“Q. When you got into the house what took place? A. We stood around there and talked. Mr. Horan said he had his will and everything and Mr. Barnes signed it and I signed it and Mr. Roseberry signed it. Before he signed it Mr. Barnes asked, I mean Mr. Horan asked if he was sure if that was the way he wanted it and Mr. Barnes said it was. He never read the will.
“Q. You didn’t know what was in it? A. No.
“Q. After that conversation between Mr. Barnes and Mr. Horan then Mr. Barnes signed it, did he? A. Yes.
“Q. It was after that then that you and Mr. Roseberry signed it? A. Yes ....
“Q. Then tell us what took place? A. When I walked into the home?
“Q. Yes. A. Just like I said, we walked in and we sat down at the table, Mr. Horan explained it to him and everything and he said ‘Are you sure, Mr. Barnes’ and Mr. Barnes said ‘Yes.’
"Q. Did Mr. Horan read the will? A. No sir.
“Q. Did Mr. Barnes read the will? A. I don’t recall.
“Q. You don’t remember of his doing so? A. No.
“Q. Mr. Horan said ‘Is this the way you want it Mr. Barnes,’ or words to that effect? A. Yes, always says ‘Are you sure if that is the way you want it’ and Mr. Barnes says ‘Yes.’
“Q. Mr. Barnes then subscribed his signature to the will and you two did? A. Yes.”
*649The testimony of Mr. Horan establishes that the will was drawn at Horan’s home, brought to Mr. Barnes at his home for execution, and that Horan retained possession of the will after its execution. Thus, Mr. Barnes had no occasion to scrutinize the will except at the time of its execution. However, the testimony reveals that the will was not read by Mr. Barnes or read to him at the time of execution.
The testimony further reveals that for several years before his death, the deceased had been suffering from cataracts, had lost the vision of one eye by an operation, and was no longer able to write, except for signing his name.
That his eyesight was so poor in the years of 1957 and 1958, he could not read a newspaper, except for the headlines. Between November 29, 1958, and February 14, 1959, he had to be led to the dinner table and to the bathroom and could not see television.
Dr. Mackey and Dr. Frederick were the only doctors who examined or treated decedent during the last year of his life.
Dr. J. K. Mackey of Oxford, Wisconsin, testified that when decedent came to him in June, 1958, decedent had fairly well-advanced arteriosclerosis affecting the vision and that his eyesight was very poor.
Dr. Harry Frederick of Westfield, Wisconsin, a physician in practice since 1927, testified that he saw the decedent on April 11, 1959, twice in May, and again in June, 1959. That the decedent was suffering from an advanced stage of arteriosclerosis and senility, and that his eyesight had been seriously impaired since prior to November 30, 1958.
The presumption that a will is valid where duly executed falls where the evidence indicates that the testator did not *650know the contents of the instrument at the time of its execution. 94 C. J. S., Wills, p. 906, sec. 130; 95 C. J. S., Wills, p. 273, sec. 384 (3) ; and Will of Walter (1885), 64 Wis. 487, 491, 25 N. W. 538. Ploran, as attorney for the testator, occupied a fiduciary relationship with the deceased and in addition, as evidenced by the power of attorney, held a confidential relationship with the testator. Horan was also the scrivener of the will and a substantial beneficiary under the terms of the testator’s will.
Under these circumstances the proof of formal execution is not enough and it was the duty of the proponent of the will to show actual knowledge by the testator of the contents of the will. There is no testimony that the testator knew the will was drawn in accordance with his directions. The testimony of Roseberry, one of the witnesses to the will, is that Mr. Horan said to Mr. Barnes in effect, “Is this the way you want it,” and handed the will to Barnes for signature, but there is no testimony that the testator had any actual knowledge of what the will contained. Such will cannot be admitted to probate as a valid last will and testament because the proponent has not met the burden of proof that it was the testator’s last will and testament. This being so, the codicil also fails because the codicil expressly refers to the will of November 29, 1958. See 57 Am. Jur., Wills, p. 574, sec. 864.
By the Court. — Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to the county court in probate to dismiss the probate proceedings of the last will and testament of Wellington B. Barnes dated November 29, 1958, and the codicil to the will dated February 14, 1959.