Court Opinion

ID: 9764363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:19:33.962279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:56.016055
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
STEPHAN F. PRESLAR, Chief Justice, dissenting.
On further consideration of this matter on motion for rehearing, I respectfully dissent on the basis that our opinion goes too far while reversing a money judgment for the plaintiff on a cause of action for malicious prosecution. In the process we have construed a will and defeated a person’s right thereunder. True, the judgment of this Court is simply one of reversal, but language in the opinion together with the defendant’s counter-claim could be construed as the law of the case.
The writer does not subscribe to the construction of the will as allowing Moore to defeat Reed’s estate. Her actions in keeping him off the land during her lifetime could not prevent his entry upon her death. Then and only then was he required to be there to qualify under the will. We recognized that in our original opinion, but we went further and made his absence from the premises at that time controlling over his right to take under the will. In that, we erred. The will gives him the right to be on the property “at the beginning of this life estate.” That time had not arrived at the time this case was tried. Moore has died while it was on appeal and Reed now has the right to be on the premises. Reed’s rights arise from the same source as Moore’s—from the will. They are then of equal dignity and for Moore to be al*851lowed to defeat Reed’s rights is to allow her to change the provisions of the will. I do not subscribe to that ruling and respectfully dissent.