ESTATE OF WEIDNER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-432 I N THE SUPREME COU4T O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1981 I N THE MATTER O T E ESTATE O F H F L O A WEIDNER, Deceased. E N Appeal from: The D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e N i n e t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e County o f L i n c o l n , The H o n o r a b l e Robert H o l t e r , Judge p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: W i l l i a m s and S v e r d r u p , L i b b y , Vontana Marc Buyske a r g u e d , L i b b y , Montana F o r Respondent : F e n n e s s y , C r o c k e r , Harman & B o s t o c k , L i b b y , Montana Mark F e n n e s s y a r g u e d , L i b b y , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: MkV 1.3 1981 A p r i l 21, 1981 MAY 1 3 I98\ M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e Court. P e t i t i o n e r Gale W e i d n e r a p p e a l s f r o m a judgment e n t e r e d i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t , L i n c o l n County, h o l d i n g t h a t t h e 1954 w i l l of Leona W e i d n e r was i r r e v o c a b l e and a d m i t t i n g t h a t w i l l t o p r o b a t e . Leona W e i d n e r and E . J . W e i d n e r , p a r e n t s of Gale W e i d n e r and L o r r a i n e Brown, e x e c u t e d a j o i n t w i l l i n 1 9 5 4 . The w i l l l e f t a l l p r o p e r t y t o t h e s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e , and p r o v i d e d t h a t upon t h e s u r v i v o r ' s d e a t h , t h e i r s o n would r e c e i v e f i v e d o l l a r s , b e c a u s e " h e [ h a s ] b e e n p r o v i d e d f o r a l r e a d y , " and t h a t t h e i r d a u g h t e r would r e c e i v e t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e p r o p e r t y . E. J . W e i d n e r d i e d i n 1 9 5 7 ; Leona W e i d n e r r e c e i v e d p r o - perty pursuant t o the joint w i l l . Leona d i e d o n F e b r u a r y 1 4 , 1 9 8 0 , and L o r r a i n e Brown, t h e s u r v i v i n g d a u g h t e r , s o u g h t t o p r o b a t e t h e 1954 w i l l . However, t h e s u r v i v i n g s o n , Gale W e i d n e r , p e t i t i o n e d t h e c o u r t f o r a formal d e t e r m i n a t i o n of i n t e s t a c y . He produced an unexecuted copy o f a second w i l l , t h e o r i g i n a l of w h i c h was p u r p o r t e d l y e x e c u t e d i n 1 9 6 5 b y Leona W e i d n e r . The 1965 w i l l c o n t a i n s a standard r e v o c a t i o n c l a u s e . The d i s t r i c t j u d g e found t h a t t h e 1 9 6 5 w i l l w a s " a p p a r e n t l y executed ." However, h a v i n g a l s o found t h a t t h e 1 9 5 4 w i l l was b o t h a w i l l and a c o n t r a c t , h e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e 1 9 5 4 w i l l was i r r e v o c a b l e and was e n t i t l e d t o p r o b a t e , d e s p i t e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e 1965 w i l l . Gale W e i d n e r a p p e a l s from t h e o r d e r a l l o w i n g p r o b a t e o f t h e 1954 w i l l . L o r r a i n e Brown c r o s s - a p p e a l s , s h o u l d h a v e b e e n awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s . claiming t h a t she We affirm the decision o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a d m i t t i n g t h e 1 9 5 4 w i l l t o p r o b a t e and remand t h e c a u s e f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a t t o r n e y f e e s . The p a r t i e s r a i s e s e v e r a l i s s u e s o n a p p e a l : 1) Was t h e 1 9 5 4 w i l l c o n t r a c t u a l i n n a t u r e and i n c a p a b l e of revocation? 2) Is t h e r e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o show d u e e x e c u t i o n of t h e 1965 w i l l ? 3) Did t h e 1 9 6 5 w i l l r e v o k e t h e 1 9 5 4 w i l l ? 4) Does s e c t i o n 72-12-206, MCA, allow respondent t o recover attorney fees? Montana l a w p r o v i d e s t h a t a j o i n t w i l l i s v a l i d , h u t t h a t i t inay he r e v o k e d a t a n y t i m e . S e c t i o n 72-11-201, Despite MCA. s i m i l a r s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s , many j u r i s d i c t i o n s h a v e p r o v i d e d by c a s e l a w t h a t a j o i n t w i l l made p u r s u a n t - - c o n t r a c t i s n o t to a r e v o c a b l e by t h e s u r v i v i n g t e s t a t o r , o r more p r e c i s e l y , t h a t the c o n t r a c t i s i r r e v o c a b l e and c a n be e n f o r c e d i n a c o u r t o f e q u i t y a l t h o u g h t h e w i l l is deemed r e v o k e d . 97 C. J . S . C o l l a r d v. C o l l e y ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 92 I d . 789, 4 5 1 P.2d v. L i n d l e y ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 67 N.M. 439, 356 P.2d ( 1 9 2 8 ) , 204 C a l . 604, 269 P. 450, 451-452. Wills § 1 3 6 6 ( a ); 535, 540; L i n d l e y 4 5 5 , 457; R o l l s v . A l l e n The b u r d e n is o n t h e p a r t y a s s e r t i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e c o n t r a c t , and it m u s t be shown by c l e a r , c o n v i n c i n g , and s a t i s f a c t o r y e v i d e n c e . s u p r a , 67 N.M. a t 439, 356 P.2d 1 9 6 3 ) , 380 P.2d 537, 539. a t 457; C o f f e y v. Lindley, P r i c e (Okla. S e e a l s o 1 6 9 ALR 62, 65. The d i s t r i c t j u d g e f o u n d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e showed t h e e x i s t e n c e of a c o n t r a c t . W e need n o t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h a t f i n d i n g is s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . W e hold t h a t t h e evidence presented a t t r i a l does not e s t a b l i s h t h a t the 1 9 6 5 w i l l w a s d u l y e x e c u t e d ; t h e r e f o r e t h e 1 9 5 4 w i l l was n o t r e v o k e d by t h e 1 9 6 5 w i l l and t h e 1 9 5 4 w i l l is e n t i t l e d to probate. Montana law r e q u i r e s t h a t a w i l l be d u l y e x e c u t e d , and p r o v i d e s as f o l l o w s : ... " e v e r y w i l l s h a l l be i n w r i t i n g s i g n e d by t h e t e s t a t o r o r i n t h e t e s t a t o r ' s name by some o t h e r p e r s o n i n t h e t e s t a t o r ' s p r e s e n c e and by h i s d i r e c t i o n and s h a l l be s i g n e d by a t l e a s t t w o p e r s o n s e a c h o f whom w i t n e s s e d e i t h e r t h e s i g n i n g o r t h e t e s t a t o r ' s a c k n o w l e d g m e n t of t h e s i g n a t u r e o r of t h e w i l l . " S e c t i o n 72-2-302, MCA. The b u r d e n is on t h e p r o p o n e n t of t h e w i l l t o show d u e e x e c u t i o n . S e c t i o n 72-3-310, MCA. I n a c o n t e s t e d case, a t l e a s t one of t h e a t t e s t i n g w i t n e s s e s must t e s t i f y . S e c t i o n 72-3-309, MCA. The a t t o r n e y who d r a f t e d t h e 1 9 6 5 w i l l , t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e w i t n e s s e d Leona W e i d n e r ' s s i g n i n g o f t h e w i l l . H e f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e was " q u i t e c e r t a i n " t h a t h e w a s h i m s e l f a n a t t e s t i n g witness. H e was n o t c e r t a i n who t h e o t h e r w i t n e s s was, a l t h o u g h he t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e " b e l i e v e d " t h a t i t w a s h i s s e c r e t a r y , Winifred H o s t e t l e r . Mrs. H o s t e t l e r d i d n o t t e s t i f y a t t r i a l and M r . W i l l i a m s i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h h e r , s h e d i d n o t r e c a l l t h e s i g n i n g of t h e w i l l . B a s e d on t h i s t e s t i m o n y , t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e found t h a t .. " L e o n a A. W e i d n e r i n 1 9 6 5 made a n o t h e r w i l l T h i s w i l l a p p a r e n t l y was f u l l y e x e c u t e d by Leona A. W e i d n e r , a l t h o u g h t h e d a t e and names o f t h e w i t n e s s e s a r e unknown. " . W e f i n d t h a t t h e w i l l was n o t d u l y e x e c u t e d . The d r a f t e r was a b l e t o t e s t i f y w i t h c e r t a i n t y o n l y t o h i s own a c t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e w i l l ; h e c o u l d n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e r e was a s e c o n d w i t n e s s who had w i t n e s s e d e i t h e r t h e s i g n i n g by t h e t e s t a - t o r o r t h e t e s t a t o r ' s acknowledgement of h e r s i g n a t u r e of t h e will. W e find i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to support the finding t h a t t h e 1 9 6 5 w i l l was " a p p a r e n t l y " f u l l y e x e c u t e d . Although t h e r e may h a v e b e e n s u b s t a n t i a l c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s , t h e r e was n o t s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e t r i e r of f a c t t o warrant t h i s determination. Therefore, we find t h a t t h e 1965 w i l l could n o t revoke t h e 1954 w i l l . The 1 9 5 4 w i l l was properly admitted t o probate. W e d e t e r m i n e t h a t r e s p o n d e n t i s e n t i t l e d to h e r a t t o r n e y fees . S e c t i o n 72-12-206, MCA, provides : " F e e s and e x p e n s s -- b y whom p a i d . When t h e v a l i d i t y o r p r o b a t e o f a w i l l is c o n t e s t e d t h r o u g h c o u r t a c t i o n , t h e f e e s and e x p e n s e s must b e p a i d by t h e p a r t y c o n t e s t i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o r p r o b a t e of t h e w i l l , i f t h e w i l l i n p r o b a t e is confirmed. I f t h e p r o b a t e is r e v o k e d , t h e c o s t s m u s t be p a i d by t h e p a r t y who r e s i s t e d t h e r e v o c a t i o n or o u t o f t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e d e c e d e n t , as the court directs." Here t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e con£ i r m e d t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e w i l l i n probate. Thus r e s p o n d e n t is s t a t u t o r i l y e n t i t l e d t o h e r f e e s and e x p e n s e . T h i s Court h a s not addressed t h e i s s u e of what c o n s t i t u t e s " f e e s and e x p e n s e s " as c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h i s s t a t u t e . I n t h e r e c e n t case o f L e a s e a m e r i c a C o r p o r a t i o n of W i s c o n s i n v. S t a t e o f Montana ( 1 9 8 1 1 , Mont. , 6 2 5 P.2d 68, 38 S t . R e p . 398, w e d i s c u s s e d t h e term " l e g a l e x p e n s e s w and d e t e r m i n e d t h a t l e g a l e x p e n s e s i n c l u d e d a t t o r n e y f e e s , as e x p e n s e s o f t h e proceedings. 72-12-206, W e h o l d t h a t " e x p e n s e s " as used i n s e c t i o n MCA, l i k e w i s e encompasses a t t o r n e y f e e s as p a r t of t h e e x p e n s e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g to c o n f i r m t h e p r o b a t e of a w i l l . T h i s c a u s e is remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s i n a c c o r dance with t h i s opinion. Chief J u s t i c e W e concur:

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.