ESTATE OF CRADDOCK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13298 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF OSCAR W. CRADDOCK, Deceased. Appeal from: District Court of the Second Judicial District, Honorable Arnold Olsen, Jud.qe presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Burgess, Joyce, Prothero, Whelan & O'Leary, Butte, Montana Robert O'Leary argued, Butte, P4ontana For Respondent : Edward Yelsa argued, Anaconda, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: JUIJ 1- j n 3 March 16, 1977 j~fl 1917 -1 Mr. Chief Justice Paul G. Hatfield delivered the Opinion of the Court . This is an appeal from an order of the district court admitting to probate a purported holographic will of Oscar W. Craddock, who died on November 22, 1969, survived by one brother and five sisters. Oscar W. Craddock had resided on his ranch near Ramsey, Montana, located in Silver Bow County, along with his brother, Ralph Craddock and two sisters, Ruby and Myrtle Craddock. Ralph Craddock resided with his brother from 1953 until 1969, performing most of the physical labor on the ranch. Ruby and Myrtle Craddock resided with Oscar from 1960 until 1969, taking care of the household duties. In February 1972, approximately two and one half years after Oscar W. Craddock's death, Ruby found the holographic will in question in a cupboard above the kitchen sink at the ranch house. The will was taken to the Silver Bow County attorney's office by Ralph shortly thereafter. A few days later Ralph retrieved the will and returned it to the cupboard where it remained until September, 1972. Ruby and Myrtle Craddock were hospitalized in July or August, 1972, Ruby for illness and Myrtle for a nervous breakdown. Ruby Craddock died in September, 1972, and Myrtle Craddock was subsequently declared incompetent. Following Ruby's death and the hospitalization in Warm Springs of Myrtle, Ralph Craddock offered the holographic will for probate in September, 1972, an enlarged copy appearing as follows: (The actual dimensions of the will are 4-1/8" x 5 - 5 / 8 " . ) This w i l l color. ' h e r e a f t e r P e a r l Trevenna, a n o t h e r s i s t e r o f Oscar W. Craddock, f i l e d a n o b j e c t i o n t o t h e p r o b a t e o f t h e w i l l a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e 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 ol t h e r t h a n Oscar W. Craddock. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d p r o b a t e oif t h e w i l l and Ralph Craddock a p p e a l e d t o t h i s C o u r t o b j e c t i n g t o t h e p r o c e d u r e s f o l l o w e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . T h i s C o u r t remanded t h e 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 t h e proponent was t o make a prima f a c i e showing o f p r o p e r e x e c u t i o n i n compliance w i t h s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s . E s t a t e of O s c a r W. Craddock, 166 Mont. 6 8 , 72, 530 P.2d 483. A t t h a t t i m e t h i s Court s t a t e d : "Accordingly, w e 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 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 of t h e w i l l . 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 unexplained, 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 r e s t s w i t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t upon proper hearing." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d t h i s h e a r i n g wherein Ralph Craddock and h i s d a u g h t e r , C h a r l e n e Berryman, t e s t i f i e d i n t h e p r o p o n e n t ' s case i n chief. The c o n t e s t a n t , who i s now George Trevenna, t h e p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e e s t a t e of P e a r l Trevenna, d e c e a s e d , p r e s e n t e d no c a s e i n c h i e f . Thereafter, t h e d i s t r i c t court entered a n o r d e r a d m i t t i n g t h i s w i l l t o p r o b a t e and t h e c o n t e s t a n t a p p e a l e d . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , however, f a i l e d t o make f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law, s t a t i n g i t s b a s i s f o r t h e o r d e r . Now w e a r e asked t o a d d r e s s t h e m e r i t s of t h i s c a s e . Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., makes it mandatory t h a t t h e d i s - t r i c t c o u r t make f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w i n a l l a c t i o n s t r i e d upon t h e f a c t s w i t h o u t a j u r y . Absent 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 l a w , t h i s C o u r t i s f o r c e d t o s p e c u l a t e a s t o t h e reasons f o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s decision. a t i o n i s n o t a healthy b a s i s f o r a p p e l l a t e review. Such a s i t u For t h i s reason we r e v e r s e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o r d e r and a g a i n 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 w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o make f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law, based upon t h e h e a r i n g p r e v i o u s l y h e l d b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , and e n t e r a n o r d e r a c c o r d i n g l y . For purposes of p o s s i b l y expediting t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of this matter, we will address one principle of law relied upon by the proponent at the district court and before this Court. The proponent asserts that he is entitled to a presumption that the testator made any alterations or modifications found to appear upon the holographic will. The proponent cites two California cases as authority for this principle, Estate of Stickney, 101 C.A.2d 572, 225 P.2d 649, and Estate of Cuneo, 60 C.2d 196, 384 P.2d 1. However, a better understanding of this rule of law is found in Estate of Hewitt, 63 C.A. 440, 218 P. 778, in which California first discussed this principle. Hewitt involved a will found in an open closet four to five weeks after the testatrix's death away. with the signatures cut The district court instructed the jury that where a will remains in the testator's possession until his death, and is then found among his papers with alterations, cancellations or tearings, the presumption is that such alterations, cancellations, or tearings were done by the testator with the intention to revoke. This instruction was first of all held to be in error for the use of the word "presumption" instead of "inference". Second- ly, the court pointed out that the will was found four to five weeks after the testatrix's death in an open hall closet; that the testatrix's son, the contestant, also had a key to a safety deposit box, in which the will had been previously kept; that the contestant had access to some of the testatrix's papers shortly before her death and had secretly destroyed them. The court then held: "On the facts, therefore, the case is not similar to those upon which the rule of law, however correct it may be, has been laid down, that, when a will is found immediately upon the death of the testator among his private papers, or in his depository, and in a mutilated condition, having been continuously in the testator's possession until his death, the presumption is that it was mutilated by the testator himself I t i s hardly necessary t o point animo r e v o c a n d i . o u t t h e e r r o r i n t h e u s e of t h e word " p r e s u m p t i o n " . (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) A s r e c e n t l y s t a t e d i n I n r e E s t a t e of Hartman, Mont . "Legal p r e s u m p t i o n s a r e founded upon t h e e x p e r i e n c e and o b s e r v a t i o n of d i s t i n g u i s h e d j u r i s t s a s t o what i s u s u a l l y found t o be t h e f a c t r e s u l t i n g from any g i v e n c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; a n d , t h e r e s u l t b e i n g t h u s a s c e r t a i n e d , whenever such c i r c u m s t a n c e s o c c u r , t h e y a r e prima f a c i e e v i d e n c e o f t h e f a c t presumed. " I t i s n o t a l o g i c a l i n f e r e n c e from t h e f a c t s of t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h a t t h e t e s t a t o r made t h e c r o s s - o u t s i n q u e s t i o n . T h i s h o l o g r a p h i c w i l l , which l e a v e s t h e e n t i r e e s t a t e t o t h e p r o p o n e n t , w a s found two and one h a l f y e a r s a f t e r t h e t e s t a t o r ' s death. The proponent t h e n r e t a i n e d p o s s e s s i o n of t h e w i l l f o r seven months and p r e s e n t e d it f o r p r o b a t e f o l l o w i n g t h e d e a t h o f o n e s i s t e r and t h e m e n t a l h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n o f t h e o t h e r s i s t e r , b o t h o f whom had r e s i d e d w i t h t h e t e s t a t o r and performed h i s household d u t i e s . Under s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h i s p r o p o n e n t i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e e v i d e n t i a r y b e n e f i t of a presumption, i f any d o e s e x i s t , t h a t t h e t e s t a t o r a u t h o r e d t h e c r o s s - o u t s i n question. T h i s c a u s e i s r e v e r s e d and remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t with i n s t r u c t i o n s t o e n t e r an o r d e r i n accordance with t h i s decision. Chief J u s t i c e 4
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.
