ESTATE OF CRADDOCK

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12789 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF MONTANA OR F 1974 I N T E M T E O T E ESTATE H ATR F H OF : OSCAR W CRADDOCK , Deceased. . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable John B McClernan, Judge p r e s i d i n g . . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Edward D. Yelsa argued, Anaconda, Montana For Respondent : Burgess, Joyce, Prothero, Whelan and O ' ~ e a r y , B u t t e , Montana Robert T. O'Leary argued, and Thomas Joyce appeared, B u t t e , Montana Submitted: Decided: -- Filed : \ E ~ ) Y10 'g/$ November 22, 1974 JAN~~?'J,cJ PER CURIAM: The proponent of t h e w i l l of Oscar W. Craddock a p p e a l s t h e r e f u s a l of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f S i l v e r Bow County t o a d m i t t h a t w i l l t o p r o b a t e ; i t s d e n i a l o f h i s motion f o r a new t r i a l ; and i t s d e n i a l of h i s motion t o amend t h e judgment. Considera- t i o n o f t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i s hampered by t h e s t a t e of t h e r e c o r d i n the d i s t r i c t court. Accordingly, our d i s c u s s i o n w i l l primar- i l y involve t h e procedures followed i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Oscar W. Craddock d i e d on November 11, 1969, s u r v i v e d by a b r o t h e r and f i v e sisters. A p u r p o r t e d h o l o g r a p h i c w i l l was d i s c o v e r e d among h i s p a p e r s i n F e b r u a r y 1972. H. H i s b r o t h e r , Ralph Craddock, o f f e r e d t h e w i l l f o r p r o b a t e i n September of t h a t y e a r , b u t o b j e c t i o n s were f i l e d by P e a r l Trevenna, d e c e d e n t ' s sister. Those o b j e c t i o n s a l l e g e d t h e h o l o g r a p h i c w i l l had been m u t i l a t e d and m a t e r i a l l y a l t e r e d by someone o t h e r t h a n Oscar W. Craddock. The R e g i s t e r of A c t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e S i l v e r Bow County d i s t r i c t court f i l e contains t h i s notation: "Apr. 26, 1974 I n t h i s m a t t e r t h e a l l e g e d W i l l i s denied admission t o probate; t h e w i l l c o n t e s t i s o r d e r e d d i s m i s s e d , and G e n e r a l L e t t e r s of Adm i n i s t r a t i o n a r e o r d e r e d i s s u e d t o Ralph H . Craddock upon, h i s t a k i n g o a t h and f i l i n g bond i n t h e sum of $10,000.00 and a n o r d e r be e n t e r e d accordingly." Following t h a t a c t i o n by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , p r o p o n e n t moved f o r a new t r i a l o r f o r amendment o f t h e judgment. He a l l e g e d t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u s t a i n t h e judgment; t h a t h e had been d e p r i v e d of f o r m a l t r i a l on t h e i s s u e s ; and, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had f a i l e d t o e n t e r w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. The motion was d e n i e d . Three i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d on p r o p o n e n t ' s a p p e a l from t h e judgment and d e n i a l of h i s motion. They a r e : (1) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n denying t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a d m i s s i o n of t h e w i l l t o p r o b a t e ? ( 2 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t err i n f a i l i n g t o e n t e r w r i t t e n f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law? ( 3 ) Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r i n i t s r u l i n g s on pro- p o n e n t ' s r e q u e s t s f o r admissions? Given t h e s t a t e of t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , we a r e u n a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e e i t h e r of p r o p o n e n t ' s f i r s t two i s s u e s . While t h e law c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e s t h e p r o c e d u r e s t o be f o l l o w e d i n t h e p r o b a t e of a w i l l , t h e r e c o r d f a i l s t o d i s c l o s e whether o r n o t t h e r e was compliance w i t h t h o s e r e q u i r e m e n t s . I n i n t e r p r e t i n g Montana's p r o b a t e l a w s , t h e C o u r t h a s h e l d t h e p r o p o n e n t of a w i l l must make a prima f a c i e showing t h a t t h e proposed w i l l was e x e c u t e d i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e ments. I n r e S i l v e r ' s E s t a t e , 98 Mont. 1 4 1 , 38 P.2d 277; I n r e B r a g g ' s E s t a t e , 1 0 6 Mont. 1 3 2 , 76 P.2d 57. Here, t h e r e q u i r e - ment t h a t t h e h o l o g r a p h i c w i l l be e n t i r e l y i n t h e t e s t a t o r ' s handwriting i s t h e determinative f a c t u a l i s s u e . R.C.M. S e c t i o n 91-108, 1947.. Montana's p r o c e d u r a l r u l e s c o n c e r n i n g p r o b a t e of a w i l l have, p r i o r t o t h e enactment of t h e Uniform P r o b a t e Code which h a s n o t y e t gone i n t o e f f e c t , remained s u b s t a n t i a l l y unchanged since t h e nineteenth century. S e c t i o n 91-901, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s t h a t i s s u e s of f a c t a f f e c t i n g t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e w i l l a r e t o be t r i e d , e i t h e r b e f o r e t h e c o u r t o r a j u r y . This provision a p p l i e s o n l y t o c o n t e s t e d p r o b a t e s , b u t even u n c o n t e s t e d w i l l s r e q u i r e t h e t a k i n g of t e s t i m o n y and proof of t h e w i l l . 91-809, R.C.M. Section 1947. Our p r o c e d u r e was s u c c i n c t l y s e t f o r t h i n I n r e S i l v e r ' s E s t a t e , 98 Mont. 1 4 1 , 151, 38 P.2d 277, where i t i s s t a t e d : "Thus, on a c o n t e s t b e f o r e p r o b a t e , t h e prop o n e n t of t h e w i l l must f i r s t show t h a t t h e w i l l would b e e n t i t l e d t o p r o b a t e e x c e p t f o r t h e c o n t e s t , whereupon t h e p a r t i e s proceed with t h e t r i a l * * *." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) Our c o n c e r n h e r e i s whether t h e proponent had o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g h i s prima f a c i e c a s e o f validity. An a f f i d a v i t f i l e d by p r o p o n e n t ' s c o u n s e l , and i n - cluded i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e , a s s e r t s : "That proponent was r e a d y and i s now r e a d y t o p r o v e t h a t t h e proposed w i l l i s e n t i r e l y i n t h e handwriting of t h e decedent. That t h e a f f i a n t h a s n o t p r e s e n t e d t h e case o f t h e proponent i n c o u r t a s of t h e d a t e o f t h i s a f f i d a v i t . T h a t t h e r u l i n g of t h e t r i a l c o u r t a s [ s i c ] p r e c l u d e d t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e c a s e of p r o p o n e n t on i t s m e r i t s * * *." T h i s a f f i d a v i t was f i l e d a week a f t e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d a d m i s s i o n of t h e w i l l t o p r o b a t e and d i s m i s s e d t h e c o n t e s t . Our d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s c o m p l i c a t e d by t h e a s s e r t i o n s of counsel i n t h e i r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f s . P r o p o n e n t ' s c o u n s e l , con- s i s t e n t w i t h h i s a f f i d a v i t , c l a i m s t h a t no h e a r i n g was had on A p r i l 26, 1974. Contestant's counsel f l a t l y s t a t e s t h a t "hearing w a s h e l d by t h e C o u r t on A p r i l 26, 1974". The d i s t r i c t c o u r t f i l e c o n t a i n s no i n d i c a t i o n one way o r t h e o t h e r . Generally, t h i s Court w i l l indulge a l l reasonable presumptions i n f a v o r of t h e r e g u l a r i t y of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s below. F e e l y v . Lacey, 133 Mont. 283, 322 P.2d 1 1 0 4 ; Kunesh v . C i t y o f G r e a t F a l l s , 132 Mont. 285, 317 P.2d 297. Our i n q u i r y t h e n be- comes whether i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o presume, on t h i s r e c o r d , t h a t t h e e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g r e q u i r e d by law t o o k p l a c e . A h e a r i n g d i d t a k e p l a c e b e f o r e Judge Freebourn i n 1972, b u t he was d i s q u a l i f i e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r . N transcript o of t h e h e a r i n g was p r e p a r e d , s o no t e s t i m o n i a l e v i d e n c e i n t r o - duced t h e r e was a v a i l a b l e t o t h e s u b s t i t u t e d judge, Judge McClernan. F u r t h e r m o r e , s i n c e Judge Freebourn made no r u l i n g on t h e m e r i t s , p r o p o n e n t was e n t i t l e d t o a h e a r i n g b e f o r e Judge McClernan. The r e c o r d h e r e c o n t a i n s no m i n u t e e n t r y i n d i c a t i n g t h a t such a hearing took place. I t c o n t a i n s no n o t i c e o r s e t t i n g of d h e a r i n g f o r A p r i l 26, 1974. I t contains only t h e a f f i d a v i t of p r o p o n e n t ' s c o u n s e l , s w e a r i n g t h a t " a h e a r i n g was n o t h e l d on t h e m e r i t s of t h e c a s e " . The i m p o r t a n c e o f t h i s h e a r i n g t o p r o b a t e p r o c e d u r e i n Ylontana p r e v e n t s u s from i n d u l g i n g t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s below when t h e r e c o r d b e a r s no s u b s t a n t i a l evidence of t h e hearing. However, o u r h o l d i n g h e r e i s l i m i t e d t o t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e . T h i s i s n o t a c a s e where p r o p o n e n t h a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t h e h a s no e v i d e n c e o t h e r t h a n t h e w i l l itself. Nor i s i t o n e where t h e p r o p o n e n t h a s i n d i c a t e d no d e s i r e f o r a hearing. T h r e e months p r i o r t o t h e a p p e a l e d o r d e r , p r o p o n e n t f i l e d a n o t i c e t h a t h e was p r e p a r e d f o r t r i a l . A c c o r d i n g l y , we remand t h i s c a s e t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r a h e a r i n g a t which p r o p o n e n t i s t o make h i s prima f a c i e showing o f t h e p r o p e r e x e c u t i o n o f t h e w i l l . By s o h o l d i n g , w e make no d i s p o s i t i o n a s t o t h e m e r i t s o f t h e i s s u e . The a l t e r a - t i o n s a p p e a r i n g on t h e f a c e o f t h i s h o l o g r a p h i c w i l l , i f u n e x p l a i n ed, could i n v a l i d a t e t h e w i l l . The d e t e r m i n a t i o n rests w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t upon p r o p e r h e a r i n g . The s t a t e of t h e r e c o r d a l s o p r e v e n t s o u r r u l i n g on t h e i s s u e of w h e t h e r o r n o t f i n d i n g s o f f a c t a n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w s h o u l d h a v e been e n t e r e d . F i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law need n o t b e e n t e r e d u n d e r a l l c i r c u m s t a n c e s . The e x c e p t i o n s a r e expressed w i t h i n t h e r u l e i t s e l f and w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d h e r e , s i n c e w e a r e u n a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e how t h e c o u r t ' s r u l i n g was r e a c h e d . Finally, we consider proponent's contention t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o s t r i k e c o n t e s t a n t ' s answer t o a r e q u e s t f o r a d m i s s i o n o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t o deem it admitted. Proponent r e q u e s t e d t h a t c o n t e s t a n t admit o r deny t h a t c o n t e s t a n t knew of no w i t n e s s e s who would t e s t i f y t h a t o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e t e s t a t o r rnade t h e a l t e r a t i o n s i n t h e w i l l . C o n t e s t a n t r e s p o n d e d by a s s e r t i n g t h a t p r o p o n e n t had t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h e w i l l was e n t i r e l y i n t h e t e s t a t o r ' s handwriting. R e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s s i o n s a r e g o v e r n e d by R u l e 3 6 , M.R. Civ.P. They w i l l be deemed a d m i t t e d u n l e s s d e n i e d , o b j e c t e d t o , o r a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o admission o r d e n i a l . A s set f o r t h i n t h e r u l e , grounds f o r o b j e c t i o n a r e p r i v i l e g e , i r r e l e v a n c y , o r impropriety. The c o u r t ' s o r d e r i n d i c a e s t h a t w h i l e p r o p o n e n t ' s m o t i o n m i g h t have been w e l l f o u n d e d , t h e r e q u e s t f o r a d m i s s i o n would b e answered a t p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e s c h e d u l e d s h o r t l y thereafter, and t h e p r e s e n t motion was d e n i e d . The m a t t e r was t h e n l o s t d u r i n g t h e a t t e n u a t e d maneuvering o f p r o p o n e n t , i n c l u d i n g h i s d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n of t h e f i r s t judge o n l y days a f t e r t h e p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e and b e f o r e a p r e t r i a l o r d e r c o u l d be i s s u e d . A l t h o u g h t h e r e was a l s o a p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e b e f o r e J u d g e McClernan, p r o p o n e n t d i d n o t p r o p o s e i n c l u s i o n of t h i s m a t t e r i n . h i s proposed p r e t r i a l o r d e r . Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s h e r e , w e a r e n o t p r e p a r e d t o f i n d e r r o r i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e motion. The c a s e i s a c c o r d i n g l y remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s opinion.

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.