STAPLETON v DEVRIES

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12849 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1975 LOUISE STAPLETON, e t a l . , P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, -vsBEVERLY A. D VRIES, e t a 1. , E D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s . D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable C, B, Sande, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Appeal from: Counsel o f Record: For Appellants: F o r Respondents: H i b b s , Sweeney and C o l b e r g , B i l l i n g s , Montana Maurice C o l b e r g a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F i l l n e r , Snyder and Mudd, B i l l i n g s , Montana R u s s e l l F i l l n e r a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: ' J a n u a r y 24, 1975 !&RY 2 T 1975 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 of t h e Court. Defendants Beverly A . DeVries, i n d i v i d u a l l y and a s executrix of t h e e s t a t e of Amanda DeVries, deceased; E m m a R. S t o r e r ; Herman DeVries, J r . ; L o r e t t a M. Kilwein; Gladys J. Weimer; and Marcella K. Buckholz b r i n g t h i s appeal from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Carbon County, awarding p l a i n t i f f s Louise S t a p l e t o n ; Dorothy P i h l a j a ; E t h e l C e s t n i k ; and Ruth Johnson, t h e c h i l d r e n o f Herman DeVries, deceased, from a p r i o r marriage, each an e q u a l one-tenth s h a r e of t h e e s t a t e of Amanda D e V r i e s . Herman DeVries was married twice. f i r s t marriage were born t h e p l a i n t i f f s . As i s s u e of t h e A s i s s u e of t h e marriage between Herman and A.manda were born t h e defendants. Herman d i e d June 14, 1951. I n h i s w i l l , he s t a t e d : It I g i v e , d e v i s e and bequeath t o m beloved w i f e , y Amanda DeVries, a l l t h e b a l a n c e , r e s i d u e and r e mainder of m p r o p e r t y of whatever n a t u r e , kind o r y c h a r a c t e r which I may own a t t h e time of m d e a t h y t o have and t o hold a s h e r s o l e and s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y . I do t h i s w i t h t h e knowledge t h a t s h e w i l l b e f a i r and e q u i t a b l e t o a l l of m c h i l d r e n , t h e i s s u e of myself and y m former w i f e a s w e l l a s t h e i s s u e of h e r s e l f and y myself. I I O J u l y 15, 1953, i n i t s d e c r e e , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i s n t r i b u t e d ~ e r m a n ' se s t a t e t o h i s widow Amanda "as h e r s o l e and s e p a r a t e p r o p e r t y , i n accordance w i t h t h e Last W i l l and Testament Amanda d i e d on November 8 , 1971, l e a v i n g a w i l l which was admitted t o probate. It l e f t a l l h e r property t o h e r c h i l d r e n , making no mention of p l a i n t i f f s . They c o n t e s t e d Amanda's w i l l . T h e i r p e t i t i o n t o c o n t e s t t h e w i l l was dismissed on t h e ground t h a t they were n o t II i n t e r e s t e d persons" under t h e s t a t u t e . P l a i n t i f f s then f i l e d a complaint a l l e g i n g , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t h a t Herman c r e a t e d a t r u s t f o r t h e i r b e n e f i t , o r Amanda had c o n t r a c t e d t o l e a v e a p o r t i o n of h e r p r o p e r t y t o them. O the n b a s i s of d e p o s i t i o n s taken of t h e f o u r c o n t e s t a n t s and t h e i r proposed w i t n e s s e s , and on t h e b a s i s of t h e e s t a t e f i l e s of Herman and Amanda, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t g r a n t e d summary judgment f i n d i n g a t r u s t c r e a t e d by Herman f o r t h e b e n e f i t of h i s c h i l d r e n by previous marriage, t h e p l a i n t i f f s . Defendants p r e s e n t t h r e e i s s u e s f o r review: 1. Was a c o n s t r u c t i v e t r u s t c r e a t e d f o r t h e b e n e f i t of p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e w i l l of Herman DeVries, deceased? 2. Was t h e r e a c o n t r a c t , promise of agreement, whereby Amanda DeVries agreed. t o w i l l a p o r t i o n o f h e r p r o p e r t y t o plaintiffs? 3. I f t h e r e was e i t h e r such t r u s t o r c o n t r a c t , a r e t h e claims of p l a i n t i f f s b a r r e d by s t a t u t e s of l i m i t a t i o n o r l a c h e s ? Defendants argue t h e r e was no c o n s t r u c t i v e t r u s t c r e a t e d by Herman D e ~ r i e s 'w i l l i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f s . P l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t such a t r u s t was c r e a t e d and t h a t t h e second a r t i c l e of ~ e r m a n ' sw i l l , when r e a d i n l i g h t of s e c t i o n 91-201, R.C.M. 1947, which provides t h a t a w i l l i s t o be construed according t o t h e i n t e n t of t h e t e s t a t o r , c r e a t e s a c o n s t r u c t i v e t r u s t i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f s a s t o t h e i r s h a r e of t h e e s t a t e . The second a r t i c l e i n Herman D e ~ r i e s 'w i l l r e a d s : II y I g i v e , d e v i s e and bequeath t o m beloved w i f e , Amanda DeVries, a l l t h e b a l a n c e , r e s i d u e and r e mainder of m p r o p e r t y y w i t h t h e knowledge f a i r and e q u i t a b l e t o a l l of m y t h a t s h e w i l l be c h i l d r e n , t h e i s s u e of myself and m former w i f e , y a s w e l l a s t h e i s s u e of h e r s e l f and myself." *** This Court c o n s t r u i n g t h e second a r t i c l e f i n d s t h a t t h e r e was no t r u s t c r e a t e d f o r t h e b e n e f i t of t h e p l a i n t i f f s . w i l l i s c l e a r on i t s f a c e . The I t g i v e s t o Amanda D e V r i e s , o u t r i g h t a l l of t h e p r o p e r t y owned by Herman DeVries a t t h e time of h i s death. The remaining language "with t h e knowledge t h a t she w i l l be f a i r and e q u i t a b l e t o a l l of m c h i l d r e n , t h e i s s u e of myself and m y y former w i f e , a s w e l l a s t h e i s s u e of h e r s e l f and myself." i s merely p r e c a t o r y language, and does n o t c r e a t e a t r u s t f o r t h e benef i t of p l a i n t i f f s . Both defendants and p l a i n t i f f s c i t e numerous support t h e i r arguments. cases t o W f i n d t h e s e c a s e s of l i t t l e value. e A s s t a t e d i n I n r e Sowash's E s t a t e , 62 Cal.App.512, 217 P. 123, "* * 9~ t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n t o b e placed upon t h e instrument i s of l i t t l e v a l u e a s a precedent i n a i d of t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a n o t h e r . And t h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e of c a s e s i n v o l v i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o r nonexistence of a p r e c a t o r y t r u s t ; f o r previous d e c i s i o n s o n l y served t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of g e n e r a l r u l e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n o f w i l l s , which, a f t e r a l l , i s a m a t t e r of impression a s t o t h e maker's i n t e n t i o n made upon t h e mind of a c o u r t c o n s i d e r i n g t h e w i l l i t s e l f w i t h t h e circumstances surrounding i t s execution. Each c a s e must of n e c e s s i t y , t h e r e f o r e , depend more o r l e s s upon i t s own p e c u l i a r f a c t s . '1 A Utah d e c i s i o n c i t e d by d e f e n d a n t s , M i l l e r v. Walker 676, Bank & T r u s t Company, 17 Utah 2d 88, 404 P. 2d 675, / i s very s i m i l a r t o t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n found here. The w i l l of t h e decedent i n t h a t c a s e provided i n p a r t : 'I Second, I g i v e , d e v i s e and bequeath t o m beloved y y w i f e , N e t t i e Ihudsen M i l l e r , a l l of m p r o p e r t y , whether t h e same be r e a l o r p e r s o n a l o r mixed, and I do t h i s acknowledging a l l m c h i l d r e n h e r e i n a f t e r y y named, and f o r t h e reason t h a t I know t h a t m beloved w i f e w i l l , c a r e f o r m c h i l d r e n from t h e remainder of y m e s t a t e , i f t h e r e be any, s h a r e a l i k e y 9;. " ** The Utah c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e r e was no c o n s t r u c t i v e t r u s t c r e a t e d by t h e quoted language, a s a l l e g e d by t h e c h i l d r e n of t h e deceased. The c o u r t then s t a t e d : 1l F u r t h e r persuading u s t o t h e conclusion we have reached i s t h e f a c t t h a t i t i s extremely d o u b t f u l t h a t t h e language of t h e w i l l would j u s t i f y a conc l u s i o n t h a t a t r u s t was intended. Rather t h e language seems t o i n d i c a t e c l e a r l y an i n t e n t i o n by t h e t e s t a t o r t o l e a v e t o h i s w i f e a l l of h i s p r o p e r t y t o b e used i n accordance w i t h h e r judgment. He a d v i s e d l y acknowledged h i s c h i l d r e n and s t a t e d t h e r e a s o n f o r g i v i n g t h e p r o p e r t y t o h i s w i f e , a p p a r e n t l y r e p o s i n g s u f f i c i e n t conf i d e n c e i n h e r t h a t she would u s e i t p r o p e r l y a s i n d i c a t e d y by t h e language, ' I know t h a t m beloved w i f e w i l l c a r e f o r m c h i l d r e n from t h e remainder of m e s t a t e , i f y y t h e r e b e any, s h a r e and s h a r e a l i k e . ' Where t h e r e i s a c l e a r and unequivocal d e v i s e , t h e statement of t h e r e a sons f o r doing s o does n o t l i m i t o r r e s t r i c t t h e t e s t a mentary g i f t " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) . The f a c t s i t u a t i o n i n M i l l e r we have b e f o r e u s . i s very s i m i l a r t o t h e f a c t s Herman DeVries gave a l l t h e p r o p e r t y owned by him t o h i s w i f e , Amanda, t o have and t o hold a s h e r s o l e and separate property. The reason f o r doing s o , i . e . the ffwith/knowledge t h a t she w i l l b e f a i r and e q u i t a b l e t o a l l of m c h i l d r e n " does y not l i m i t or r e s t r i c t t h e testamentary g i f t . Depositions were taken of a l l of p l a i n t i f f s and a deposit i o n was taken o f Herman ~ e ~ r i e b r'o t h e r , Martin DeVries, who s was 76 a t t h e time of t h e t a k i n g of t h e d e p o s i t i o n . None of t h e c h i l d r e n had e v e r t a l k e d t o t h e i r f a t h e r b e f o r e h i s d e a t h o r t o Amanda, a s t o t h e t e s t a m e n t a r y d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e i r p r o p e r t y . None of them knew a n y t h i n g of an agreement between Herman and Amanda Martin DeVries concerning t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of ~ e r m a n ' sp r o p e r t y . s t a t e d i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n t h a t he d i s c u s s e d ~ e r m a n ' sw i l l w i t h Herman on one of California. art in's v i s i t s t o Montana from h i s home i n Martin r e c a l l e d t h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n i n h i s testimony: "The only t h i n g t h a t I advised Herman was when we s a t on t h e porch and I s a y s , have you made a w i l l , because you know t h e importance of having a w i l l . He says y e s , and I s a y s , have you taken c a r e of a l l of your k i d s , b o t h f a m i l i e s , because you have two f a m i l i e s , and he s a y s , I have taken c a r e of everyt h i n g . That i s t h e substance of t h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n and t h e only c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t I r e c a l l I e v e r had w i t h Herman * , b u t never a n y t h i n g w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h a t , [ a d v i s i n g Herman a s an a t t o r n e y ] t h a t I can r e c a l l about t h e w i l l . I f ** There i s no evidence i n t h e r e c o r d t o support t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t Herman DeVries i n t e n d e d t o c r e a t e a t r u s t i n f a v o r of p l a i n tiffs. The language of t h e w i l l i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t . Therefore, t h i s Court f i n d s no t r u s t c r e a t e d i n t h e i r f a v o r . P l a i n t i f f s n e x t contend t h e r e was an agreement between Amanda and Herman t h a t Amanda would l e a v e h e r e s t a t e i n e q u a l s h a r e s t o a l l of t h e c h i l d r e n of Herman DeVries. Plaintiffs reason: t h a t when Herman used t h e p h r a s e , "with t h e knowledge1' t h a t he had t o o b t a i n t h i s knowledge from h i s w i f e ; t h a t when Amanda, a s e x e c u t r i x of ~ e r m a n ' se s t a t e , signed t h e f i n a l account and p e t i t i o n f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n of ~ e r m a n ' se s t a t e which s t a t e d II t h a t i n pursuance of and according t o t h e terms and p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e L a s t W i l l and Testament of Herman DeVriesfl t h a t s h e knew p a r t of t h e terms was t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y would go t o h e r w i t h t h e knowledge t h a t s h e would b e f a i r and e q u i t a b l e t o a l l of h i s c h i l d r e n , and t h a t she had some knowledge of an agreement which t h i s Court can imply was a promise t o e q u a l l y d i s t r i b u t e t h e p r o p e r t y upon h e r d e a t h . This Court does n o t a g r e e w i t h t h i s p o s i t i o n o f p l a i n t i f f s . Nowhere can we f i n d any such knowledge o r i m p l i c a t i o n , e i t h e r from t h e d e p o s i t i o n s o r from t h e w i l l i t s e l f . Amanda's s i g n i n g o f t h e f i n a l account and p e t i t i o n f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n merely acknowledged t h a t she was doing s o under t h e a u t h o r i t y o f and i n conformity w i t h t h e l a s t w i l l and testament o f Herman DeVries, and no o t h e r implica t i o n n o r knowledge can b e a l l e g e d t o e x i s t because of t h e s i g n i n g . Having found no t r u s t f o r t h e b e n e f i t of p l a i n t i f f s , and having found no agreement o r c o n t r a c t t o have e x i s t e d between Amanda and Henry DeVries a s t o t h e e q u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f Amanda's e s t a t e , we do n o t f i n d i t n e c e s s a r y t o d i s c u s s t h e l a s t q u e s t i o n f o r review concerning l a c h e s m r t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and remanded w i t h t h e i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t a new judgment be e n t e r e d i n W Concur: e ----------------I-------------- Chief J u s t i c e ------------------------------= Justices.

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.