ESTATE OF HALL v MILKOVICH

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 11911 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA H OR F F I N THE M T E O THE ESTATE O ATR F F MACK G. HALL, Deceased. JAMES HALL, RUBY CHRISTNER and CLARA RAMER, Contestants, P l a i n t i f f s , a n d Appellants, VS. LURA MILKOVICH, Executrix of t h e E s t a t e of Mack G. H a l l , Deceased; and Mac C h r i s t n e r e t a l . , Proponents and Defendants, and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. D. McPhillips, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellants : Marra and Wenz, Great F a l l s , Montana. Joseph R. Marra argued, and Warren Wenz appeared, Great F a l l s , Montana. Robert E. Kovacevich, Spokane, Washington. David H. Nelson appeared, Conrad, Montana. For Respondents: Harwood, G a l l e s , Gunderson & Beiswanger, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Dale F. Galles argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Hutton, S c h i l t z and Sheehy, B i l l i n g s , Montana. John C. Sheehy argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Aronow, Anderson & Beatty, Shelby, Montana. Robert G. Anderson argued, Shelby, Montana. Sherman and Anderson, Conrad, Montana. William B. Sherman appeared, Conrad, Montana. Submitted: Decided: October 26, 1971 JAN 2 4 11172 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . T h i s i s a w i l l c o n t e s t which came on f o r t r i a l t o t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h a j u r y i n t h e n i n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Pondera. A f t e r t h e c l o s e of t h e p l a i n t i f f - c o n t e s t a n t s ' case i n c h i e f , t h e court granted a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i n favor of defendant-proponents. From t h a t judgment, t h e p l a i n t i f f - c o n - t e s t a n t s app.ea1. Mack G. H a l l d i e d o f c a n c e r a t t h e a g e of 8 1 on August 3 , 1966. He had farmed i n t h e v i c i n i t y o f Pondera County s i n c e he was a young man. H i s f i r s t w i f e d i e d a b o u t 1928, l e a v i n g him with four small children t o r a i s e . H i s s o n James, born i n 1923, remained on t h e farm and i n l a t e r y e a r s farmed on s h a r e s w i t h h i s father. Ruby, h i s o l d e s t c h i l d born 1919, helped r a i s e t h e younger c h i l d r e n on t h e farm. d i v o r c e d and r e m a r r i e d . She m a r r i e d t h e h i r e d man, was Her c h i l d r e n , t h e C h r i s t n e r c h i l d r e n , a r e proponents o f t h e w i l l i n t h i s c o n t e s t . 1926, l e f t t h e farm i n h e r t e e n s . C l a r a , born i n Dorothy, now d e c e a s e d , l e f t two c h i l d r e n , Dennis and Delane McKinney, who were adopted and r a i s e d by Mack H a l l and h i s second w i f e , Ada H a l l . They a r e now known a s Dennis and Delane H a l l ( g r a n d c h i l d r e n and adopted c h i l d r e n o f t h e d e c e a s e d ) , and a r e a l s o proponents o f t h e w i l l . Ada H a l l , t h e s u r v i v i n g widow, knew t h e deceased i n 1909 b u t married a M r . Crist and h a s s i x c h i l d r e n by him. I n 1946, t h e d e c e a s e d , Mack H a l l , v i s i t e d t h e C r i s t s i n I l l i n o i s . Ada C r i s t came t o Montana t o v i s i t Mack H a l l i n t h e summer o f 1947. She d i v o r c e d h e r husband i n October 1947, and r e t u r n e d t o Montana and married Mack H a l l i n December 1947. There i s a long h i s t o r y o f a n i m o s i t y between Ada H a l l and t h e n a t u r a l c h i l d r e n o f Mack H a l l , b e g i n n i n g w i t h t h e i r m a r r i a g e on December 7 , 1947. In t h e p r e c e d i n g 20 y e a r s b e f o r e t h i s m a r r i a g e Mack H a l l had l i v e d a l o n e and had a m a n i f e s t l o v e f o r h i s children. However, f o l l o w i n g t h e m a r r i a g e i n 1947, t h e f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p was s o u r e d by t h e f i g h t s , d i s a g r e e m e n t s , and d i s c o r d s between Ada and h i s c h i l d r e n . One by one t h e remaining c h i l d r e n moved away and became i n f r e q u e n t v i s i t o r s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , a s evidenced by Mack all's f i r s t w i l l o f 1952, h i s i n t e n d e d t e s t a m e n t a r y d i s p o s i t i o n was a n a t u r a l one embracing h i s n a t u r a l c h i l d r e n and h i s second w i f e , Ada. I n 1963, Mack H a l l was b e s e t by t h e b e g i n n i n g o f a long s e r i e s of i l l n e s s e s i n c l u d i n g termina 1 c a n c e r , which was diagnosed a s e a r l y a s 1964. I n 1964 h e was a l r e a d y a v e r y s i c k man and h i s i l l n e s s resulted i n h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n t h i r t e e n times. was Mack H a l l ' s c o n d i t i o n i n s h o r t succession. This t h e time f o u r w i l l s were drawn Three were drawn i n November 1965, and t h e l a s t w i l l on May 1 7 , 1966; a l l o f which d i s i n h e r i t h i s n a t u r a l children. The e n t i r e t h r u s t o f t h i s w i l l c o n t e s t i s c e n t e r e d upon t h e l a s t n i n e months o f Mack all's l i f e , d u r i n g which time t h e s e w i l l s were drawn. I n s t r u m e n t a l d u r i n g t h i s n i n e month p e r i o d i s t h e c l o s e a s s o c i a t i o n and i n f l u e n c e e x e r c i s e d upon Mack H a l l by one Mark Milkovich, a mutual funds salesman, who s o l d Mack H a l l $64,000 worth o f mutual funds between December 1 4 , 1965 and May 1 3 , 1966. Mark Milkovich a d m i t s h e s o l d t h e mutual funds t o Mack H a l l i n t r u s t f o r Ada H a l l w i t h f u l l knowledge t h a t Mack H a l l was dying o f termina 1 c a n c e r . Concurrent w i t h t h e s e s a l e s Mark Milkovich was named e x e c u t o r and c o - t r u s t e e i n t h e t h r e e w i l l s executed i n November 1965; ~ i l k o v i c h ' sw i f e was named a s e x e c u t r i x and c o - t r u s t e e i n t h e l a s t w i l l d a t e d May 1 7 , 1966. Mark Milkovich i s c h a r g e d , a l o n g w i t h Ada H a l l , w i t h undue i n f l u e n c e and f r a u d r e s u l t i n g i n r i c h p r e s e n t and f u t u r e rewards f o r b o t h . Ada all's f i n a n ~ i a lp o s i t i o n grew by a b o u t $64,000, w i t h Milkovich r e c e i v i n g s u b s t a n t i a l commissions. In a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e sums, i n t h e immediate f u t u r e Milkovich o r h i s w i f e would r e c e i v e t h e s u b s t a n t i a l e x e c u t o r ' s f e e under t h e w i l l o f Mack H a l l , w h i l e a l s o p r o v i d i n g themselves w i t h a n n u a l f e e s a s co-trustees. A t i s s u e i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e i s t h e l e g a l i t y and e f f e c t o f t h e l a s t w i l l and t e s t a m e n t of Mack G . H a l l , which d i s i n h e r i t s t h e t e s t a t o r ' s t h r e e s u r v i v i n g n a t u r a l c h i l d r e n under two s e p a r a t e t r u s t s which a r e provided a s a m a r i t a l d e d u c t i o n t r u s t and a residuary t r u s t . and $600,000. The v a l u e of t h e e s t a t e i s between $450,000 Under t h e l a s t w i l l of May 1 7 , 1966, Lura Milko- v i c h i s a p p o i n t e d a s e x e c u t r i x of t h e w i l l w i t h Lura Milkovich and t h e Pondera Bank o f Montana, Conrad, Montana named a s t r u s t e e s . Under t h e m a r i t a l d e d u c t i o n t r u s t , one-half o f d e c e d e n t ' s e s t a t e i n c l u d i n g p r o p e r t y which passed t o t h e w i f e o u t s i d e t h e w i l l , would be c o n s i d e r e d p a r t o f t h e t r u s t f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e w i f e w i t h t h e power o f appointment i n h e r . Out o f t h e income from t h e property held i n t h e m a r i t a l deduction t r u s t , t h e t r u s t e e s a r e t o pay t o t h e w i f e s u c h income i n q u a r t e r l y i n s t a l l m e n t s , s o long a s s h e s h a l l l i v e . The c o r p u s o f t h e t r u s t would remain i n t h e t r u s t e e s u n t i l t h e death of t h e wife. Upon such e v e n t , t h e t r u s t e e s d e l i v e r t h e c o r p u s o f t h e e s t a t e t o such p e r s o n s a s s h e by power o f appointment might p r o v i d e i n h e r l a s t w i l l ; b u t i f s h e made no p r o v i s i o n i n h e r l a s t w i l l , upon h e r d e a t h t h e t r u s t e e s would pay over and d i s t r i b u t e t h e corpus of t h e m a r i t a l d e d u c t i o n t r u s t t o Mack H a l l ' s adopted c h i l d r e n , Dennis Ray H a l l and Delane H a l l , s h a r e and s h a r e a l i k e . It i s provided t h a t such adopted c h i l d r e n s h a l l n o t s e l l o r encumber t h e w i l l p r o p e r t y d u r i n g t h e i r lifetime. Under t h e terms o f t h e r e s i d u a r y t r u s t of t h e l a s t w i l l , t h e r e s i d u e o f t h e e s t a t e i s placed i n t r u s t w i t h t h e same cot r u s t e e s , Lura Milkovich and Pondera Bank o f Montana, t o h o l d t h e same and t o pay t h e r e f r o m a l l t h e r e n t s , income and p r o f i t s i n e l e v e n e q u a l s h a r e s t o t h e e l e v e n g r a n d c h i l d r e n of t h e d e c e d e n t , i n c l u d i n g t h e g r a n d c h i l d r e n he adopted on November 8 , 1965. The r e s i d u a r y t r u s t s h o u l d c o n t i n u e u n t i l J a n u a r y 1, 1974, when i t t e r m i n a t e s a b s o l u t e l y , and a t t h a t time t h e remaining r e s i d u a r y t r u s t p r o p e r t y i s t o be s e t over t o Dennis Ray H a l l and Delane Harry H a l l , t h e adopted c h i l d r e n o t t h e d e c e d e n t , i n e q u a l s h a r e s . I n a d d i t i o n , tilt? r e s i d u a r y t r u s t i s s u b j e c t t o two e x p r e s s s t i p u l a t i o n s of t h e d e c e d e n t , f i r s t t h a t t h e farm home n e a r Brady s h a l l b e s u b j e c t t o a l i f e u s e by t h e widow Ada H a l l ; s e c o n d l y , t h a t t h e t r u s t e e s o f t h e r e s i d u a r y t r u s t may s e l l , d i s p o s e , o r mortgage any o r a l l of t h e t r u s t p r o p e r t y d u r i n g t h e l i f e of t h e t r u s t a t t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n , i f i t i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t of t h e trust estate. The t r u s t e e s f o r b o t h t r u s t s a r e Lura Milkovich and t h e Pondera Bank of Montana. T e s t a t o r Mack H a l l ' s l a s t w i l l and t e s t a m e n t executed on May 1 7 , 1966, was a d m i t t e d t o p r o b a t e by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t on J a n u a r y 9 , 1967, a p p o i n t i n g Lura Milkovich, w i f e o f Mark Milkov i c h , e x e c u t r i x , a s provided i n t h e w i l l . On June 8 , 1967, James H a l l and Ruby C h r i s t n e r , two o f d e c e d e n t ' s t h r e e s u r v i v i n g c h i l d r e n , f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r r e v o c a t i o n o f p r o b a t e , r e c i t i n g undue i n f l u e n c e had been e x e r c i s e d upon d e c e d e n t preceding h i s dea t h y a l o n g w i t h t h e d e b i l i t a t i n g e f f e c t s on h i s t e s t a m e n t a r y c a p a c i t y due t o s e d a t i o n , t e r m i n a l d i s e a s e , and advanced a g e . I n a s e p a r a t e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v o c a t i o n on t h e same d a t e , C l a r a Ramer, d e c e d e n t ' s t h i r d s u r v i v i n g c h i l d , j o i n e d i n s e e k i n g r e v o c a t i o n o f admission o f t h e w i l l t o p r o b a t e . On September 7 , 1967, Ruby C h r i s t n e r p e t i t i o n e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o a p p o i n t a n a t t o r n e y t o r e p r e s e n t h e r f i v e n a t u r a l c h i l d r e n , Mac C h r i s t n e r , L o i s C h r i s t n e r , Richard C h r i s t n e r , James C h r i s t n e r and Robert C h r i s t n e r , g r a n d c h i l d r e n o f Mack G . H a l l and named d e v i s e e s and l e g a t e e s under t h e May 1 7 , 1966 w i l l , which p e t i t i o n e r s were p r e paring t o contest. On October 30, 1967, by way o f s t i p u l a t i o n among t h e p a r t i e s through t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e a t t o r n e y s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t a u t h o r i z a t i o n b e g i v e n t o t h e a t t o r n e y s f o r examinat i o n and copying of a l l o r any p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d s o f Mack G . H a l l i n t h e Montana Deaconess H o s p i t a l , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana, and S t . ~ a r y ' sH o s p i t a l o f Conrad, Montana, f o r t h e p e r i o d from J a n u a r y 1, 1962 t o d a t e o f d e c e d e n t ' s d e a t h . On A p r i l 1 0 , 1970, p e t i t i o n e r s James H a l l and Ruby C h r i s t n e r f i l e d a n amended p e t i t i o n f o r r e v o c a t i o n o f p r o b a t e , followed by a s i m i l a r amended p e t i t i o n by C l a r a Ramer on A p r i l 20, 1970, joining the issue. I n s u b s t a n c e t h e p e t i t i o n s were i d e n t i c a l and r e p e a t e d c l a i m s o f undue i n f l u e n c e and l a c k o f t e s t a m e n t a r y c a p a c i t y due t o s e d a t i o n , weakened p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n , weakened menta 1 c o n d i t i o n and e l a b o r a t e d upon t h e undue i n f l u e n c e , f r a u d and d e c e i d p r a c t i c e d by Ada H a l l , widow, a s s i s t e d by Mark Milkovich, t h e mutual fund salesman. The i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e amended p e t i t i o n s f i l e d by c o n t e s t a n t s came on f o r t r i a l b e f o r e t h e c o u r t and j u r y on A p r i l 24, 1970. A f t e r t h e c l o s e of p l a i n t i f f - c o n t e s t a n t s ' c h i e f , on motion o t t h e d e i e n d a n t - p r o p o n e n t s , case i n the court directed a v e r d i c t f o r proponents d i s m i s s i n g c o n t e s t a n t s ' petitions, whereupon t h i s a p p e a l was t a k e n . I A p p e l l a n t s ' i s s u e s on review a r e : 1. Whether h o s p i t a l r e c o r d s o f t h e d e c e d e n t s h o u l d have been a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e i n a n a t t e m p t t o show t h a t d e c e d e n t lacked t e s t a m e n t a r y c a p a c i t y a t t h e time o f e x e c u t i n g h i s l a s t will. 2. Whether p l a i n t i f t s e s t a b l i s h e d a prima f a c i e c a s e o f undue i n f l u e n c e , f r a u d , o r l a c k o f t e s t a m e n t a r y c a p a c i t y . 3. Whether t h e t r i a 1 c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t s a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t o r i f any motion was g r a n t e d , p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s h b u l d have been g r a n t e d . ~ p p e l l a n t ' p o s i t i o n i s t h a t Mack s all's primary d r i v i n g f o r c e was t o b u i l d a n e s t a t e and keep i t t o g e t h e r a s a s i n g l e manageable economic u n i t , a s was demonstrated i n t h e f i r s t w i l l drawn i n 1952, when h e was w e l l and 67 y e a r s of a g e . That t e s t i - mony a t t h e t r i a l r e f l e c t e d h i s d e s i r e n o t t o have h i s l a n d s o l d o r mortgaged. That a f t e r Mark Milkovich, t h e mutual fund salesman, became a s s o c i a t e d i n e s t a t e p l a n n i n g , t o g e t h e r w i t h Ada H a l l . d u r i n g t h e l a s t months o f d e c e a s e d ' s t e r m i n a l i l l n e s s , t h e r e was a s t e a d y e r o s i o n o f t h e e s t a t e i n t o t h e i r hands; a l l n a t u r a l c h i l d r e n were d i s i n h e r i t e d by a s e r i e s o f f o u r w i l l s drawn i n t h e n i n e month p e r i o d from November 1965, t o May 1966, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e s a l e t o t h e d e c e a s e d , i n t r u s t t o r Ada H a l l , o f $64,000 i n mutual funds. That Mark Milkovich was a c t i v e l y i n s t r u m e n t a l i n t h e making of t h e l a s t f o u r w i l l s and was named executor and c o - t r u s t e e i n t h e t h r e e w i l l s drawn on November 3 , 8,and 2 2 , 1965. That t h e w i l l drawn November 2 2 , 1965, c o n t a i n e d a c o n t r o v e r s i a l power of appointment i n Ada H a l l , t h e widow. This we w i l l d i s c u s s l a t e r i n t h i s opinion. That t h e l a s t w i l l drawn May 17, 1966, and admitted t o probate was drawn a t Mark ~ i l k o v i c h ' s r e q u e s t because he wanted t o s u b s t i t u t e h i s w i f e a s e x e c u t r i x and c o - t r u s t e e s i n c e he had been informed a t a company meeting t h a t h i s company could be sued i f he remained t h e c o - t r u s t e e and e x e c u t o r . Howev@r, t h i s l a s t w i l l contained a new power, n o t i n t h e previous w i l l s , g r a n t i n g t h e c o - t r u s t e e s t h e power t o s e l l and encumber t h e land. Appellants produced evidence t h a t Ada H a l l promised decedent s h e would n o t e x e r c i s e t h e power of appointment contained i n t h e m a r i t a l deduction t r u s t . They contend Mark H a l l executed h i s w i l l i n r e l i a n c e on t h i s promise. A t t r i a l , Ada H a l l t e s t i f i e d s h e could n o t remember making such a promise, b u t r a t h e r t h a t Mack wanted h e r t o have t h e e s t a t e . The importance of t h e power of appointment i s t h a t i f i t was n o t e x e r c i s e d , then t h e corpus would go i n t o t h e r e s i d u a r y t r u s t and e v e n t u a l l y t o two of d e c e d e n t ' s na t u r a 1 g r a n d c h i l d r e n . O t h e o t h e r hand, i f Ada H a l l e x e r c i s e d t h e power, t h e n s h e could n e f f e c t i v e l y d i v e r t t h e t r u s t corpus t o anyone s h e wished. Here, a p p e l l a n t s contend t h a t s h e intended t o e x e r c i s e t h e power i n favor of c h i l d r e n of h e r previous marriage. Further, a p p e l l a n t s contend t h a t t h e promise of Ada H a l l n o t t o e x e r c i s e t h e power was a m a t e r i a l inducement t o t h e executing of t h e w i l l by decedent. Appellants contend decedent had been ill s i n c e 1963; had been h o s p i t a l i z e d numerous times ; had d i f f i c u l t y remembering c u r r e n t events but could r e c o l l e c t t h e p a s t ( t h i n g s t h a t happened y e a r s a g o ) ; had twice s e t h i s bed on f i r e ; and had asked about nonexisting events. F u r t h e r , t h a t had t h e h o s p i t a l r e c o r d s been - 7 - admitted i n t o evidence they would show o r prove decedent was of weakened mind and body and under continuous s e d a t i o n o r medication a t t h e time of t h e execution of t h e l a s t w i l l i n t h e Conrad h o s p i t a l . ~ e s p o n d e n t sargument g e n e r a l l y i s d i r e c t e d a t t h e execu' t i o n of t h e l a s t w i l l . They contend t h e d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t was proper because a p p e l l a n t s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e c a s e of f r a u d , undue i n f l u e n c e , o r l a c k of testamentary c a p a c i t y . F u r t h e r t h a t a p p e l l a n t s had t h e burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e above by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence, which they f a i l e d t o do f o r t h e s e reasons: A. There i s no evidence, i n t h e record o r o t h e r w i s e , t h a t t h e decedent Mack G . H a l l was incompetent t o make a w i l l on May 17, 1966, t h e d a t e of h i s l a s t w i l l . B. There i s no evidence, i n t h e record o r o t h e r w i s e , t h a t a t t h e time decedent Mack G . H a l l made h i s l a s t w i l l , on May 17, 1966, t h a t he was a c t i n g under t h e undue i n f l u e n c e of any person whomsoever. C. There i s no evidence, i n t h e record o r o t h e r w i s e , t h a t t h e l a s t w i l l of t h e decedent Mack G . H a l l , d a t e d May 1 7 , 1966, was a r e s u l t of any f r a u d upon him by any person whomsoever. D. The t r i a l c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n d i r e c t i n g a v e r d i c t s u s t a i n i n g t h e l a s t w i l l of t h e decedent Mack G . H a l l , d a t e d May 1 7 , 1966. Concerning t h e t r u s t s , respondents contend t h a t t h i s was t h e d e v i c e s e l e c t e d by deceased because Dennis and Delane were minors and he d i d n o t want t h e land s o l d o r mortgaged,and he wanted them t o have a c o l l e g e education and t h e l a n d . The m u l t i p l e w i l l s were explained a s a d e v i c e t o make more w i l l s f o r h i s c h i l d r e n t o c o n t e s t , knowing a c o n t e s t would ensue. The a t t o r n e y who drew t h e w i l l s t e s t i f i e d Ada H a l l promised n o t t o e x e r c i s e t h e power of appointment and t h e e s t a t e would go t o Dennis and Delane, j u s t a s decedent wanted. He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d f o r her Ada H a l l had him draw a w i l l / t h a t did n o t e x e r c i s e t h e power. Thus, t h e respondents a r g u e t h a t t h e promise, i f a n inducement, i s f u l l y performed and n o t f r a u d . They f u r t h e r a r g u e t h e r e i s an a d d i t i o n a l burden t h a t must be met by a p p e l l a n t s atnasmuch a a s t h e w i l l once admitted i s presumed v a l i d . Here, we p o i n t out t h i s Court has b e f o r e i t f o r i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n only one i s s u e and t h a t i s t o determine from t h e record i f t h e cause was p r o p e r l y withdrawn from t h e j u r y . In s o doing we must recognize t h a t t h e law does n o t favor d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s and t h e evidence t h e r e f o r e w i l l be viewed i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o a p p e l l a n t s , a s having proved what i t tends t o prove. S e c t i o n 93-5205, R.C.M. 1947, provides: "Directed Verdict--when. Td'here, upon t h e t r i a l of an i s s u e by a j u r y , t h e c a s e p r e s e n t s only q u e s t i o n s of law, t h e judge may d i r e c t t h e j u r y t o render a v e r d i c t i n favor of t h e p a r t y e n t i t l e d t h e r e t o . II Rule 50, Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure, provides: "Motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t and f o r judgment notwithstanding t h e v e r d i c t . (a) MOTION F R DIRECTED VERDICT- -WHEN MADE, EFFECT. O A p a r t y who moves f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t a t t h e c l o s e of t h e evidence o f f e r e d by an opponent may o i f e r evidence i n t h e event t h a t t h e motion i s n o t g r a n t e d , without having reserved t h e r i g h t s o t o do and t o t h e same e x t e n t a s i f t h e motion had n o t been made. A motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t which i s n o t g r a n t e d i s n o t a waiver of t r i a l by j u r y even though a l l p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n have moved f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s . A motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s h a l l s t a t e t h e s p e c i f i c grounds t h e r e f o r . The o r d e r o t t h e c o u r t g r a n t i n g a motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i s e f f e c t i v e w i t h o u t any a s s e n t or t h e j u r y . II I' The long recognized c a s e of Johnson v. Chicago, M.& S t . P.R.Co., 71 Mont. 390, 394, 230 P. 5 2 , s t a t e d t h e framework f o r interpretation: "In t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h a t s t a t u t e , t h i s c o u r t has announced t h e following r u l e s : "(1) Upon a motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i n favor of t h e defendant, t h e evidence introduced by t h e p l a i n t i f f w i l l be considered i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o him and a s proving whatever i t tends t o prove. "(2) A cause should never be withdrawn from t h e j u r y , u n l e s s t h e conclusion from t h e f a c t s follows n e c e s s a r i l y , a s a m a t t e r of law, t h a t a recovery cannot be had upon any view which can be drawn reasonably from t h e f a c t s which t h e evidence tends t o e s t a b l i s h . "(3) In reviewing an o r d e r d i r e c t i n g a v e r d i c t f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t , t h i s c o u r t w i l l c o n s i d e r only t h e evidence introduced by t h e p l a i n t i f f , and i f t h a t evidence, when viewed i n t h e most f a v o r a b l e l i g h t , tends t o e s t a b l i s h t h e c a s e made by t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s p l e a d i n g s , t h e o r d e r w i l l be r e v e r s e d . ( C i t i n g c a s e s ) "The term ' p l a i n t i f f ' s evidence, 1 a s employed i n t h e foregoing r u l e s , excludes merely a b a r e s c i n t i l l a , b u t i n c l u d e s every f a i r i n f e r e n c e which may be drawn from t h e f a c t s proved and, a s w e l l , any evidence introduced by t h e defendant which tends t o s u p p o r t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s case.'' The law has become t o o w e l l s e t t l e d s i n c e Johnson in 1924, t o r e q u i r e t h e r e s t a t i n g of t h e numerous c i t a t i o n s a f f i r m i n g the doctrine. This was recognized by t h e Court i n t h e most r e c e n t d e c i s i o n S h i e l d s v . Murray, Mont . , 481 P.2d 680, 682, 28 S t . Rep. 211, where t h e Court i n r e v e r s i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s order withdrawing a c a s e from t h e j u r y , a g a i n a f f i r m i n g t h i s doctrine, stated: "This Court, on a number of o c c a s i o n s , has s t a t e d t h a t c a s e s and i s s u e s should n o t be withdrawn from a j u r y u n l e s s reasonable and fair-minded men could r e a c h only one conclusion from t h e f a c t s . ( C i t i n g c a s e s ) . Genuine q u e s t i o n s of f a c t should be submitted t o the jury. (Citing case). A corollary t o t h e above r u l e i s t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence j u s t i f y i n g submission of an i s s u e t o a jury e x i s t s when r e a s o n a b l e men might r e a c h d i f f e r e n t conclusions from t h e f a c t s . P a r i n i v. Lanch, 148 Mont. 188, 418 P.2d 861." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . While t h i s c a s e p r e s e n t s a c o n t e s t involving t h e l a s t w i l l and testament of Mack H a l l , t h i s w i l l cannot s t a n d a l o n e i n view of t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of undue i n f l u e n c e , f r a u d , and l a c k o t testamentary c a p a c i t y . From t h e testimony and e x h i b i t s introduced i n t o evidence a t t h e t r i a l , we f i n d t h e r e were f o u r w i l l s , t h r e e drawn w i t h i n a one month period and a l l f o u r w i t h i n a s i x month p e r i o d , a l l of which c o n t a i n e d marked v a r i a t i o n s i n testamentary d i s p o s i t i o n and e f f e c t upon h i s landed e s t a t e . These s u c c e s s i v e w i l l s i n a s h o r t p e r i o d ' o f time p r i o r t o t h e d e a t h o f t h e 8 1 y e a r old t e s t a t o r with a long h i s t o r y of d e c l i n i n g mental and p h y s i c a l h e a l t h due t o a p a i n i u l t e r m i n a l c a n c e r , bear c l o s e examination. S e c t i o n 13-311, R.C.M. II 1947, d e f i n e s undue i n f l u e n c e : Undue i n f l u e n c e cons i s ts : "1. I n t h e u s e , by one i n whom a confidence i s reposed by a n o t h e r , o r who holds a r e a l o r a p p a r e n t a u t h o r i t y over him, of such confidence o r a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e purpose of o b t a i n i n g an unf a i r advantage over him; "2. I n t a k i n g a n u n f a i r advantage oL a n o t h e r ' s weakness:. o r mind; o r , "3. I n t a k i n g a g r o s s l y o p p r e s s i v e and u n f a i r advantage of a n o t h e r ' s n e c e s s i t i e s o r d i s t r e s s . I I Respondents r e l y h e a v i l y on language t h i s Court used i n E s t a t e of Cocanougher, 141 Mont. 1 6 , 25, 375 P.2d 1009, when t h e Court quoted from In r e ~ e g a r t y ' sE s t a t e , 46 Nev. 321, 212 P. tl 1 Courts have n e i t h e r t h e r i g h t nor power t o reframe t h e w i l l s o i decedents, nor t o overthrow t h e expressed i n t e n t t h e r e i n c o n t a i n e d , i n t h e absence of d i r e c t and s u b s t a n t i a l proof s u f f i c i e n t t o b r i n g t h e c a s e w i t h i n t h e w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e s of law r e g a r d i n g undue i n f l u e n c e . '11 This Court i s mindful of t h e d i g n i t y t h a t i t has reposed i n a d e c e d e n t ' s w i l l and r e a f f i r m t h i s d o c t r i n e . But we must recognize t h a t t h e Court had C~canougherb e f o r e i t on a p p e a l twice a i t e r j u r y v e r d i c t s f i n d i n g undue i n f l u e n c e and p r o p e r l y found t h a t t h e evidence revealed none. Therefore t h a t d o c t r i n e has no a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e i s s u e b e f o r e us i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . W w i l l not address ourselves t o the ultimate i s s u e e concerning t h e v a l i d i t y of t e s t a t o r ' s w i l l , b u t w i l l only c o n s i d e r t h e c a s e law rso d e f i n e t h e a r e a s of relevancy t h a t may be cons i d e r e d t o determine i f t h e r e remain i s s u e s r a i s e d upon which reasonable men could d i s a g r e e . This Court i n E s t a t e of Maricich, 145 Mont. 146, 161, 400 P.2d 873, s a i d : II The law i n t h e c a s e s concerning undue i n f l u e n c e p l a c e s upon t h e c o n t e s t a n t t h e burden of proof i n showing s u b s t a n t i a l evidence o i undue i n f l u e n c e . I n determining t h i s i s s u e on undue i n f l u e n c e we may c o n s i d e r : "(1) C o n f i d e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e person attempting t o influence t h e t e s t a t o r ; "(2) The p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n o f t h e t e s t a t o r a s i t a f f e c t s h i s a b i l i t y t o withstand the influence; "(3) The mental c o n d i t i o n of t h e t e s t a t o r a s i t a f f e c t s h i s a b i l i t y t o withstand influence; "(4) The u n n a t u r a l n e s s of t h e d i s p o s i t i o n a s i t r e l a t e s t o showing an unbalanced mind o r a mind e a s i l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o undue i n f l u e n c e ; and "(5) The demands and i m p o r t u n i t i e s a s they may a f f e c t p a r t i c u l a r t e s t a t o r taking i n t o considerat i o n t h e time, t h e p l a c e , and a l l t h e surrounding circumstances. I I Here, i n view of t h e evidence, t h e s u c c e s s i v e w i l l s i n t e s t a t o r ' s d e c l i n i n g days, and t h e dismemberment of t e s t a t o r ' s e s t a t e under those w i l l s , t h i s Court i s compelled t o s e e k a f a c t u a l determination t o a s e r i e s of i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s . myopic t o f a i l t o c o r r e l a t e t h e d e c l i n i n g phys i c a 1 s t a t e of t h e 8 1 y e a r old decedent i n h i s l a s t s i x months of l i f e w i t h t h e sudden r a s h of w i l l s , d i v e r s e i n t h e i r p a t t e r n s a s com- pared t o t e s t a t o r ' s w i l l of 1952, and e r o s i v e i n t h e i r e f f e c t upon t e s t a t o r ' s e s t a t e . even.ts These concurrent p a t t e r n ~ ~ ~ o f r a i s e grave q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t upon which a lawful d e t e r m i n a t i o n has no p l a c e , a b s e n t a j u r y d e t e r m i n a t i o n . Further, a t t r i a l testimony was given t h a t t e s t a t o r ' s mind r e f l e c t e d t o p a s t events i n h i s l i f e w h i l e h i s g r a s p of p r e s e n t events s l i p p e d and wandered. As t h e record of medical t r e a t m e n t was excluded a t t r i a l and t h e c a s e was n o t presented t o a j u r y , t h e c r i t i c a l f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t e s t a t o r ' s comprehension, awareness, and c o n c e n t r a t i o n was n o t f a c t u a l l y determined. R e f l e c t i n g upon t h e r e c o r d s of medication, indeed, on t h e l a s t day p r e p a r a t o r y t o s i g n i n g t h e l a s t w i l l t e s t a t o r was r e c e i v i n g r e g u l a r i n j e c t i o n s of codeine, t h e e f f e c t of which could be m a t e r i a l . The t o t a l i t y of t h e testimony and evidence a t t r i a l goes beyond t h e mere s u s p i c i o n of undue i n f l u e n c e , f r a u d , and i n c a p a c i t y and s u b s t a n t i a l l y b e a r s upon t h e i s s u e s pleaded i n t h e p e t i t i o n s f o r r e v o c a t i o n of w i l l . There was n o t only a mere o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n f l u e n c e , but a c t i v e procurement of c o u n s e l i n , i t s preparation. The p r o v i s i o n s a l o n e , i n view of t e s t a t o r ' s i n t e n t , a r e i n q u e s t i o n a s t o h i s concepts and r e l a t i o n s h i p s during t h i s p e r i o d . Standing a l o n e , t h e testimony of w i t n e s s e s i s enough C0 t h e p r e s e n t s u f f i c i e n t evidence a s t o f a c t u a l i s s u e s which n e c e s s a r i l y should be placed b e f o r e a j u r y , a s t o both t e s t a t o r ' s mental and p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n . Reference t o t h e m a t e r i a l i t y o f t h e changes i n w i l l s d u r i n g t e s t a t o r ' s l a s t days e q u a l l y r a i s e s q u e s t i o n s of f a c t which a r e d i r e c t l y i n i s s u e i n view of t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of cont e s t a n t s of fraud and undue i n f l u e n c e p r a c t i c e d upon t e s t a t o r during t h e period. What remains u l t i m a t e l y a s a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t i s what ' -' _ h a s been d e s c r i b e d i n Murphy v . N e t t , 47 Mont. 38, 5 2 , -132 P. 451, as: 11 I n a c a s e i n v o l v i n g undue i n f l u e n c e t h e q u e s t i o n i s n o t what e f f e c t t h e supposed i n f l u e n c e would have had upon a n o r d i n a r i l y s t r o n g and i n t e l l i g e n t p e r s o n , b u t i t s e f f e c t upon t h e p e r s o n on whom i t was e x e r t e d , t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e t i m e , t h e p l a c e and a l l t h e s u r r o u n d i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t body o f c o n t e s t a n t s ' o f f e r e d e v i d e n c e was r u l e d i n a d m i s s i b l e a t t h e t r i a l and i t i s t o t h i s excluded t e s t i m o n y t h a t we now d i r e c t our a t t e n t i o n . A s i s c l e a r from p o i n t (2) o f t h e t e s t s t a t e d i n Maricich, t h e physical c o n d i t i o n of t h e t e s t a t o r a s i t a£fected h i s a b i l i t y t o withstand influence is an i s s u e f o r f a c t u a l determination. However, a s a p p e l l a n t s p o i n t o u t i n argument, a l l h o s p i t a l r e c o r d s of Mack H a l l were r u l e d i n a d m i s s i b l e a t t h e trial. The t r a n s c r i p t r e v e a l s t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d a t t h e p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e t h a t f o u n d a t i o n would n o t be r e q u i r e d t o a d m i t t h e h o s p i t a l r e c o r d s i n t o e v i d e n c e under t h e Uniform B u s i n e s s Records a s Evidence A c t , C h a p t e r 801, T i t l e 93, R.C.M. 1947. However, a t t r i a l a n o b j e c t i o n was made by d e f e n d a n t s t o t h e a d m i s s i o n of t h e s e r e c o r d s on t h e ground t h a t i t had n o t been shown t h a t t h e s e r e c o r d s were r e l e v a n t . a d m i s s i o n was d e n i e d . A f t e r argument t h e i r It must be c l e a r from o u r d i s c u s s i o n t h a t t h i s Court c o n s i d e r s t h e u n d e n i a b l e f a c t u a l c o n t e n t o f t h e s e r e c o r d s , a s t h e y b e a r on t e s t a t o r ' s p h y s i c a l and m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n , relevant t o t h e u l t i m a t e i s s u e s of t h i s case. It does i n j u s t i c e t o t h e r a t i o n a l p r o c e s s o f weighing t h e f a c t s t o deny a d m i s s i o n o f t h o s e f a c t s upon which reasoned judgment must b e b a s e d . There i s n o p r e t r i a l o r d e r i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e . A p r e t r i a l o r d e r would o r s h o u l d r e f l e c t p r e c i s e l y what a g r e e ments were made between t h e p a r t i e s and t h e c o u r t i n r e f e r e n c e t o these exhibits. I f t h e s e e x h i b i t s were n o t r e l e v a n t i n t o t a l , o r i f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s e r e c o r d s r e q u i r e s e x p e r t t e s t i m o n y f o r q u a l i f i e d a n a l y s i s , o r i f some o b j e c t i o n s were p r e s e r v e d beyond f o u n d a t i o n , t h e p r e t r i a l p r o c e s s s h o u l d have r e s o l v e d t h e problem., The r e c o r d a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e s i t c o u l d have been a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g b u t l a c k i n g t h e f a c t u a l s u p p o r t of a p r e t r i a l o r d e r , we w i l l l i m i t our o b s e r v a t i o n s t o what h a s been s a i d f o r guidance when t h e m a t t e r i s p r o c e s s e d f o r r e t r i a l . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e judgment g r a n t i n g a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i s r e v e r s e d and a new t r i a l o r d e r e d . Associate J u s t i c e

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.