DYBVIK v DYBVIK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-446 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F i982 RICHARD A. DYBVIK, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , VS . lvIARY DYBVIK, Defendant and Respondent. I N THE MATTER O THE ESTATE O F F HJORDIS BINGHAM, Deceased. IN THE PATTER O THE ESTATE O F F TRYGVIE A. DYBVIK, Deceased. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourteenth 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 1 4 u s s e i s h e l l Honorable N a t A l l e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record : For P l a i n t i f f : L i n d a L. H a r r i s , B i i l i n g s , Montana Alan J. L e r n e r , B i g F o r k , Montana For Defendant: Rerndon, H a r p e r & Munro, B i l l i n g s , Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : J u l y 29, Decided: Fiied: DEc 9 - 1982 Clerk 1982 December 9, 1982 M r . J u s t i c e John Court. Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of T h i s is a n a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d Judicial District i n and for the County of the i n the Fourteenth Musselshell. The o r i g i n a l a c t i o n was commenced b y R i c h a r d D y b v i k , a l l e g i n g damages and u n l a w f u l o c c u p a t i o n of real property. Dybvik, f i l e d a n a n s w e r and c r o s s - c o m p l a i n t a l l e g a t i o n s of Dybvik had in£luence t h e c o m p l a i n t and obtained . to title Richard i n £ l u e n c e and c r o s s - c l a i m e d real answered Mary denying t h e p r i n c i p a l further alleging the Dybvik The d e f e n d a n t , property by t h a t Richard through denying any undue undue f o r damages f o r f r a d u l e n t , m a l i c i o u s , and i n t e n t i o n a l a c t s of Mary Dybvik i n h e r a t t e m p t to d e n y him o f T h i s a c t i o n was l a t e r c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h t w o o t h e r h i s property. probate causes. The judgment, entered on J u n e 1 9 , 1981, set a s i d e a power o f a t t o r n e y , a w i l l , and a d e e d ; a l l on g r o u n d s of undue i n £ l u e n c e The whether law, and . appellant raises the District opinion the Court's are following i s s u e s on a p p e a l : f i n d i n g s of supported by fact, substantial (1) c o n c l u s i o n s of evidence; (2) w h e t h e r or n o t t h e r e was a n y a c t of undue i n f l u e n c e i n p r o c u r e m e n t o f t h e power of a t t o r n e y , t h e w i l l , and t h e d e e d ; and ( 3 ) i f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n i t s j u d g m e n t , w h e t h e r t h i s c a s e s h o u l d be remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s r e l a t i n g to p l a i n t i f f ' s o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t f o r damages. W e f o u n d no e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n to s e t a s i d e t h e d e e d b u t r e v e r s e t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of that respondent that the w i l l established and , b y c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e , t h e power of means and i n £ l u e n c e of the court a t t o r n e y were a c q u i r e d the beneficiary, Richard Dybvik, through and n o t d o n e w i t h t h e f r e e w i l l of H j o r d i s Bingham. I n March o f 1979, H j o r d i s Bingham, s e v e n t i e s , was i n p o o r h e a l t h . California. On or a b o u t March Community H o p s i t a l i n L o s A n g e l e s At an e l d e r l y l a d y i n h e r t h a t time s h e was l i v i n g 30 s h e was . admitted in to Temple H o s p i t a l p e r s o n n e l , concerned w i t h h e r a b i l i t y t o care f o r h e r s e l f and h e r a f f a i r s , c o n t a c t members Ask, of her family. The h o s p i t a l t h e f a m i l y a t t o r n e y i n Roundup, Montana. t a c t e d T r y g v i e Dybvik, t h e b r o t h e r of H j o r d i s h i s son, Richard Dybvik, contacted Mr. . s o u g h t to Thomas Ask t h e n con- Trygvie contacted who a g r e e d t o go to C a l i f o r n i a to see w h a t c o u l d be d o n e . R i c h a r d went t o C a l i f o r n i a and m e t h i s a u n t f o r the f i r s t t i m e . W i t h i n o n e week he o b t a i n e d a g e n e r a l power o f a t t o r n e y a l l o w i n g him t o h a n d l e a l l o f h e r a f f a i r s . t i m e H j o r d i s Bingham had At this f o u r d i f f e r e n t bank a c c o u n t s t o t a l i n g T h e r e was e x t e n s i v e t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l r e g a r d i n g t h e $32,131.09. s u b s e q u e n t e x p e n d i t u r e of t h e s e f u n d s . I t is s u f f i c i e n t to n o t e t h a t when R i c h a r d Dybvik g a i n e d c o n t r o l o v e r t h e f o u r a c c o u n t s , t h e f u n d s were s o o n d e p l e t e d . A f t e r o b t a i n i n g t h e power o f a t t o r n e y , R i c h a r d moved H j o r d i s from the hospital to V i r g i l C o n v a l e s c e n t H o m e , located i n Los Toward t h e end o f May a r r a n g e m e n t s were made t o move Angeles. An a p a r t m e n t was r e n t e d i n Roundup. H j o r d i s t o Montana. a n d h i s w i f e were t o l i v e w i t h and care f o r H j o r d i s . Richard Shortly a f t e r a r r i v i n g i n Roundup H j o r d i s was a g a i n a d m i t t e d t o h o s p i t a l Doctor D a v i s o f Roundup c o n f i r m e d t h e d i a g n o s i s of d o c t o r s care. a t Temple Community Hospital i n Los A n g e l e s ; t h a t Hjordis was s u f f e r i n g f r o m c h r o n i c o r g a n i c b r a i n syndrome and o t h e r p h y s i c a l ailments. On J u n e 13, 1979, H j o r d i s was d i s c h a r g e d h o s p i t a l t o l i v e w i t h h e r nephew and h i s w i f e . later, month from t h e Roundup Approximately one o n J u l y 1 0 , 1 9 7 9 , H j o r d i s e x e c u t e d a new w i l l in w h i c h s h e l e f t a l l of h e r p e r s o n a l and r e a l p r o p e r t y t o R i c h a r d R i c h a r d t e s t i f i e d t h a t H j o r d i s had a s k e d him t o c o n t a c t Dybvik. Mr. Ask so t h a t a r r a n g e m e n t s c o u l d be made t o d r a f t t h e new w i l l . Ask had p r e v i o u s l y p r o b a t e d t h e e s t a t e of t h e d e c e a s e d ' s Mr. father, and had known t h e d e c e a s e d testified California found t h a t he f o r a number of was c a l l e d by t h e h o s p i t a l i n April 1979 because i n her apartment. some o f H e was a d v i s e d his years. administrator He in l e t t e r h e a d s were t h a t she w a s s e r i o u s l y ill and asked t o c o n t a c t h e r b r o t h e r , Trygvie. He d i d so and f o u n d him t o o ill t o t r a v e l so T r y g v i e c o n t a c t e d h i s s o n R i c h a r d i n A r i z o n a and g o t him t o go t o C a l i f o r n i a t o c h e c k up on h i s aunt. A c c o r d i n g t o M r . A s k ' s t e s t i m o n y R i c h a r d a s k e d him w h a t to d o and he a d v i s e d him t o be " a p p o i n t e d c o n s e r v a t o r or g u a r d i a n " o r a t l e a s t g e t a power of a t t o r n e y from h e r so t h a t h e r b u s i n e s s matters, rent, hospital, medical, etc. bills could be paid. C o n c e r n i n g t h e d r a w i n g of t h e w i l l he t e s t i f i e d he was c a l l e d b y R i c h a r d e a r l y i n J u l y t o come see h i s a u n t a b o u t d r a w i n g a new w i l l and t h a t he d i d s o on J u l y 1 0 . g e t t h e d e t a i l s of H e w e n t to h e r a p a r t m e n t t o t h e new w i l l b u t b e f o r e d o i n g so he v i s i t e d i t was with her for returned t o Roundup. the His first t i m e he had t e s t i m o n y of seen her since she t h i s v i s i t is i m p o r t a n t and c o n t r o l l i n g a s t o h e r m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n t h a t d a y and i t is s e t f o r t h a s follows: "Q. with A. Did s h e t e l l you what s h e wanted d o n e h e r p r o p e r t y f o r p u r p o s e s of t h e w i l l ? Yes. "Q. And w h a t was t h a t ? A. Well, s h e was always concerned about h e r b r o t h e r , Trygvie Dybvik, b u t s h e t o l d m e when I v i s i t e d h e r on t h a t d a y t h a t s h e had v i s i t e d w i t h him, or t a l k e d t o him on t h e p h o n e , and he was i n , you know, p o o r h e a l t h , b u t s h e f e l t t h a t he was g e t t i n g t h e v e t e r a n ' s p e n s i o n and h e was a t t h e V e t e r a n ' s H o s p i t a l i n Miles C i t y and d r e w S o c i a l S e c u r i t y , s o s h e t h o u g h t he was p r e t t y w e l l taken care o f . And s h e wanted t o make h e r w i l l l e a v i n g a l l of h e r p r o p e r t y to h e r nephew, R i c h a r d Dybvik. "Q. Did s h e make a n y comments a b o u t Mary A. Yes. Over t h e Dybvik a t t h a t t i m e ? y e a r s , s h e and Mary, I g u e s s , h a v e had a f e u d f o r many y e a r s , and s h e d e f i n i t e l y , on t h a t d a y , s a i d s h e d i d n ' t want Mary t o h a v e h e r p r o p e r t y i f a n y t h i n g happened t o h e r ; and t h a t ' s why s h e wanted to g i v e it t o R i c h a r d , and s h e f e l t t h a t T r i g g e r was t a k e n c a r e o f , y o u know, and so s h e d i d n ' t h a v e t h a t much o b l i g a t i o n t o him. "Q. Do you r e c a l l who c o n t a c t e d you w i t h I t h i n k Richard r e g a r d t o s e e i n g H j o r d i s ? A. t o l d me s h e wanted t o see m e , and p r o b a b l y a b o u t t h e 9 t h , I suppose, i n t h e morning, I t o l d him, ' W e l l , I ' l l s t o p e i t h e r g o i n g home a t l u n c h or on t h e way b a c k from l u n c h . ' "Q. Who e l s e was p r e s e n t when you t a l k e d to Hjordis? A. No o n e . J u s t H j o r d i s and myself. D o you r e c a l l how l o n g you t a l k e d to h e r ? Oh, I s u p p o s e I was t h e r e maybe 20 I t h i n k R i c h a r d and h i s w i f e may minutes. h a v e b e e n t h e r e when I g o t t h e r e . They k i n d S h e was i n a o f had a--she was s t i l l i l l . h o u s e c o a t , and I t h i n k t h e y l e f t when I g o t there. I know t h e y w e r e n ' t i n o n t h e c o n v e r - "Q. A. sation a t all. "Q. The w i l l was e x e c u t e d J u l y 1 0 , 1 9 7 9 . Can y o u e x p l a i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r which t h a t was e x e c u t e d ? A. Well, I t o l d h e r t h a t I would f i x it and I would come up t h e n e x t d a y , so w e worked it o u t a t noon t h a t w e would s t o p o n t h e way home, and t h e w i t n e s s e s were J o h n P r a t t , my p a r t n e r , and J u l i e Ann, o u r s e c r e t a r y , so w e a l l s t o p p e d o n o u r way home from I g o t t h e r e f i r s t so s h e would h a v e a lunch. c h a n c e t o l o o k o v e r t h e w i l l , and t h e n J o h n She had P r a t t came and o u r s e c r e t a r y came. r e a d t h e w i l l , and I went o v e r i t w i t h h e r ; and s h e s i g n e d it and t h e y w i t n e s s e d it and I n o t a r i z e d it. "Q. Did you l e a v e t h e w i l l w i t h H j o r d i s when you went? A. Yes, and a p p a r e n t l y I l e f t a c o p y t h e r e too. A l o t of p e o p l e w a n t a n e x t r a c o p y so t h e y c a n p u t t h e w i l l i n t h e i r box and a c o p y t o l o o k a t i f t h e y w a n t t o , and t h a t o n e you showed m e i s t h e copy I made f o r h e r , b e c a u s e i t is my p r i n t i n g . "Q. On b o t h o f t h o s e o c c a s i o n s , J u l y 9 , 1 9 7 9 , a n d J u l y 1 0 , 1 9 7 9 , d i d you make a n y o b s e r A. v a t i o n s about Hjordis' mental state? Well, it seemed t o m e t h a t s h e was a b o u t t h e way I a l w a y s remember h e r , o t h e r t h a n s h e had She was t h i n n e r b e e n s i c k , it w a s o b v i o u s . and weaker, b u t o t h e r t h a n t h a t , I t h o u g h t s h e was c o m p e t e n t and a b o u t t h e same as s h e had always been. "Q. A. A t t h a t time d i d s h e know who s h e was? Oh, y e s . "Q. Did s h e know who you were? who I was, and w e v i s i t e d . "Q. A. Did s h e know who R i c h a r d w a s ? She knew A. Oh, yeah. Did s h e know t h e r a n c h s h e was d i s p o s i n g in the w i l l ? A. Yeah, s h e t a l k e d a b o u t t h a t , because over the y e a r s , h e r b r o t h e r , T r i g g e r , h a s u s e d t h e r a n c h and r u n c a t t l e on t h e r e ; and t h i s was a p p a r e n t l y p a r t o f t h e i r a r r a n g e m e n t t h a t s h e was k i n d o f h e l p i n g him t h a t way, t h a t h e had t h e u s e of i t , b u t s h e talked about things. T h e r e was n o t h i n g unus u a l t h a t s h e d i d n ' t know w h a t s h e was d o i n g . "Q. of "Q. On b o t h of t h e s e o c c a s i o n s , d i d H j o r d i s Bingham e x p r e s s a c o n c e r n t h a t t h i s p r o p e r t y n o t go t o Mary Dybvik? A. Oh, y e s . Was s h e v e r y a d a m e n t a b o u t t h a t ? A. Y e s , and s h e had b e e n o v e r t h e y e a r s . She w a n t e d T r i g g e r t a k e n care o f - - h e r brother, "Q. t h a t ' s h i s nickname--but s h e d i d n ' t want Mary o r h e r boys t o h a v e a n y of h e r p r o p e r t y . . Q Did s h e e v e r r e f e r t o Mary and h e r c h i l d r e n a s 'Mary and h e r c h i c k e n s , ' t h a t you A. I d o n ' t remember. I know can r e c a l l ? t h a t t h e r e was i l l - f e e l i n g b e t w e e n them, and I d o n ' t know how Mary f e l t a b o u t i t , b u t I t r y t o s t a y o u t of p e r s o n a l i t i e s . 'I "Q. But t o t h e b e s t of y o u r k n o w l e d g e , had t h i s been a l o n g - s t a n d i n g f e u d b e t w e e n Mary Dybvik and h e r ? A. Yes, Mary r a n a n u r s i n g home, and h e r m o t h e r was t h e r e , and H j o r d i s came up and v i s i t e d , and I s u p p o s e t h e y had I say, I a r g u m e n t s ; and I d o n ' t know--like d o n ' t want t o g e t i n v o l v e d w i t h them, b u t s h e didn' t l i k e her ." Before h e r d e a t h she executed a deed. near Roundup that her brother Trygvie H j o r d i s owned a r a n c h had been managing. A u g u s t 2 7 , 1 9 7 9 , s h e deeded t h i s p r o p e r t y to h e r nephew, Dybvik. Richard t h a t Hjordis testified requested Richard this a c t i o n so s h e would be e l i g i b l e f o r M e d i c a i d b e n e f i t s . again contacted M r . Ask to d o t h e l e g a l work. Mr. On transRichard Ask p r e p a r e d t h e deed and g a v e it t o R i c h a r d who t h e n d r o v e t o L e w i s t o w n to g e t it e x e c u t e d . i n Lewistown who m e t H e c o n t a c t e d an a t t o r n e y with Hjordis for the signing. The same d a y R i c h a r d r e c o r d e d t h e d e e d w i t h t h e M u s s e l s h e l l C o u n t y C l e r k and R e c o r d e r . Eventually, t h e a p p e l l a n t , R i c h a r d Dybvik, t o o k s t e p s to f o r c e h i s f a t h e r and stepmother to vacate the ranch and thereafter commenced this a c t i o n f o r damages. The appellant f i n d i n g of urges this adopted the focused Court to respondent's on this . -- In record the -- -. . not will standard this f i n d i n g s of situation I the support In conjunction with t h i s reconsider findings. Mon t (1981)I that influence. Court's District have undue argues case the of before, i s s u e he review District f a c t verbatim. Tomaskie of a Court While v. a we Tomaskie , 625 P.2d 5 3 6 , 5 3 9 , 38 S t . R e p . 4 1 6 , 4 1 9 , c a u t i o n i n g D i s t r i c t C o u r t s who r e l y " t o o h e a v i l y on t h e p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s s u b m i t t e d by t h e w i n n i n g p a r t y , ' ' w e a r e n o t compelled t o change t h e r u l e . not be set a s i d e M.R.Civ.P. As w e unless " F i n d i n g s of f a c t s h a l l c l e a r l y erroneous. have n o t e d b e f o r e , . ." Rule 52(a), a l t h o u g h t h e f i n d i n g s may n o t t e c h n i c a l l y be t h e work p r o d u c t of t h e y a r e s i g n e d t h e y become h i s . Jensen (1981), - Mont .- the d i s t r i c t judge, I n Re t h e M a r r i a g e o f J e n s e n v. , - 6 3 1 P.2d 7 0 0 , 38 S t . R e p . C i t y o f B i l l i n g s v . P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - , 6 3 1 P.2d Other 1 2 9 5 , 38 S t . R e p . decisions inquiry. Of have foremost that of whether the further trial the f i n d i n g s of We w i l l court. f a c t and ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 9 Mont. not Mont. 1514; Olson 1 5 4 , 557 P.2d 1 5 5 Mont. 412, v. cannot deviate of our from o u r judgment to "'conf ined law." 5 8 7 P.2d for determining Cameron v . 939, 944; Mont - Westfork 541; . c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t 1 t h e . - Cameron I n t h e M a t t e r of , --. .-- Properties, 8 2 1 ; Hornung v . 4 7 3 P.2d limits the s u b s t i t u t e our are t h e Estate of LaTray ( 1 9 7 9 ) , St.Rep. we c o n c l u s i o n s of 219, 227, Mont -- -- Our f u n c t i o n s d o n o t i n c l u d e a We is s u b s t a n t i a l there defined importance, case. 1109; 1162. f u n c t i o n as a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . retrial of once 5 9 8 P.2d Inc. 619, 36 (1976)r 171 E s t a t e of L a g e r q u i s t ( 1 9 7 0 ) , S t a t e Highway Comm. v. W e s t Great F a l l s F l o o d C o n t r o l and D r a i n a g e D i s t r i c t ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 5 5 Mont. 1 5 7 , 468 P.2d We 753. have elaborated several well-settled dence in the Cameron v . most light Cameron , s u p r a ; 455, 507 this standard to favorable the prevailing Inc "The e v i d e n c e may be weak and s t i l l be deemed ' s u b s t a n t i a l I and L e w i s ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 4 4 Mont. 5 4 3 , 5 4 7 , 3 9 8 P.2d . ( ., 1973 ) , inherently . . . substantial d e n c e may c o n f l i c t w i t h o t h e r e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . " Mont. a t 2 2 8 , 587 P.2d party. Wes t f o r k P r o p e r t i e s , I n c Olson v. 523. and W e view t h e e v i - B a r r e t t M o b i l e Home T r a n s p o r t , P.2d times numerous p r i n c i p l e s have emerged. s u p r a ; H e l l i c k s o n v. 1 6 1 Mont. on evi- Campeau v . 9 6 0 , 9 6 2 ; ----Cameron, 1 7 9 a t 945. W i t h t h e a b o v e p r i n c i p l e s i n mind it is h e l p f u l t o r e v i e w t h e l a w d e a l i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h undue i n £ l u e n c e . h a s b e e n d e f i n e d by s e c t i o n 28-2-407, Undue MCA: "Undue i n £ l u e n c e c o n s i s t s i n : " ( 1 )t h e u s e b y o n e i n whom a c o n f i d e n c e is r e p o s e d b y a n o t h e r o r who h o l d s a r e a l o r in£ luence a p p a r e n t a u t h o r i t y o v e r him o f s u c h c o n f i d e n c e 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 a n u n f a i r a d v a n t a g e o v e r him; " ( 2 ) taking an u n f a i r w e a k n e s s o f mind; or " ( 3 ) taking advantage distress ." a d v a n t a g e of another's 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 of another's necessities or I n e v a l u a t i n g w h e t h e r t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e to support a finding of we deed find controlling. subsection influence" with 1 of section respect 28-2-407, to the to MCA, be T h e r e is e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t H j o r d i s reposed confidence i n h e r nephew, s u a n t t o t h e terms of Hjordis. "undue R i c h a r d Dybvik and t h a t pur- t h e deed Richard gained a n a d v a n t a g e o v e r W h i l e H j o r d i s was s t i l l a l i v e , s h e d i v e s t e d h e r s e l f h e r i n t e r e s t i n r e a l p r o p e r t y and c o n v e y e d District Court therefore it t o R i c h a r d . in The in a trust had e v i d e n c e t h a t R i c h a r d , r e l a t i o n s h i p with h i s aunt, gained an u n f a i r advantage over h e r which s u p p o r t s s e t t i n g a s i d e t h e deed. W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e w i l l , a d i f f e r e n t t e s t o f undue i n f l u e n c e H j o r d i s , t h r o u g h t h e w i l l , is making a d i s p o s i - m u s t be a p p l i e d . tion of disposition Dybv i k to o c c u r a f t e r h e r d e a t h . property The testamentary c r e a t e s a con£ l i c t b e t w e e n R i c h a r d Dybvik and Mary . T h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d on numerous o c c a s i o n s t h a t a w i l l may n o t be defeated on grounds of undue in£ luence unless: "the testator is induced, b y t h e means e m p l o y e d , t o e x e c u t e a n i n s t r u m e n t i n form and appearance h i s w i l l , but i n r e a l i t y expressing t e s t a m e n t a r y d i s p o s i t i o n s w h i c h h e would n o t h a v e v o l u n t a r i l y made, and t h a t to d e f e a t a will, t h e undue i n f l u e n c e m u s t h a v e b e e n d i r e c t e d toward t h e p a r t i c u l a r t e s t a m e n t a r y a c t and a t t h e t i m e t h e r e o f , o r so n e a r I n t h e Matter of t h e r e t o a s t o be o p e r a t i v e . t h e E s t a t e o f M a r i c i c h ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 4 5 Mont. 1 4 6 , 1 5 9 , 400 P.2d 8 7 3 , 8 8 0 . Furthermore, as noted ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 1 6 5 Mont. petence fact. is n e v e r 69, by this 5 2 5 P.2d presumed Court in 559, undue and m u s t be Blackmer v. Blackmer i n f l u e n c e or proven, like incom- any o t h e r I n B l a c k m e r a l t h o u g h t h e r e was a showing of a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o e x e r c i s e undue influence on the testator, it was not suf- f i c i e n t t o p r o v e undue i n £ l u e n c e and i n v a l i d a t e t h e w i l l . Under t h e f a c t s of t h e B l a c k m e r c a s e , t h e t e s t a t o r was a n e l d e r l y person ( a s i n t h i s c a s e ) and age, including poor infirmities eyesight, failing f u s i o n and s e n i l i t y . testamentally had These associated with old memory , o c c a s i o n a l con- f a c t s did not render the t e s t a t r i x b u t were m a t t e r s incapacitated, t o be taken c o n s i d e r a t i o n and c o r r o l a t e d w i t h t h e a l l e g e d a c t s of into in£ l u e n c e t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e a c t s amounted to undue i n £ l u e n c e . Here, t h e u n c o n t r a d i c t e d t e s t i m o n y showed t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t , R i c h a r d , c a l l e d M r . Ask, t h e a t t o r n e y who had r e p r e s e n t e d H j o r d i s since the request 1 9 6 0 1 s , and and that instructions t h e c a l l was made a t h e r . There not is even the specific slightest s u g g e s t i o n i n t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t R i c h a r d p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of t h e w i l l or t h a t terms. he dictated the w i l l ' s v e r s e is t r u e s i n c e M r . I t would appear t o us, t h e con- A s k ' s t e s t i m o n y was n o t i m p e a c h e d . Ask had known t h e testator f o r a period f e e l i n g s regarding t h e Dybvik r a n c h . of time and testified He Mr. knew h e r about t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e terms of t h e w i l l and h e r r e a s o n s f o r l e a v i n g t h e r a n c h to R i c h a r d , h e r nephew. I t was h i s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t on t h e d a y t h a t t h e w i l l was d r a w n , J u l y 1 0 , 1 9 7 9 , t h a t s h e was n o t u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e of any p e r s o n w h a t s o e v e r , and i n d e e d t h a t s h e knew what s h e was d o i n g and was m e n t a l l y no d i f f e r e n t t h a n s h e had b e e n a t d i f f e r e n t times t h a t he had r e p r e s e n t e d h e r . Here, t h e r e is no f i n d i n g of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t n o r any e v i d e n c e to show "a mirrored prior solicitation," on the appellant, Richard's, part. find We the District o p i n i o n as t o undue f icient, Court's f i n d i n g s and influence regarding a s a m a t t e r of act Hjordis. influence to procure Without it the an a c t is c l e a r the w i l l to be and insuf- l a w , b e c a u s e t h e y f a i l t o show t h a t a t t h e t i m e of t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h e w i l l , cific conclusions t h e p r o p o n e n t , d i d a spe- new w i l l o r of to procurement t h a t a c a s e of in£ luence his aunt, or a specific act undue to i n f l u e n c e was n o t established. W e r e v e r s e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t as to t h e w i l l undue i n £ l u e n c e was u s e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t and r e i n s t a t e t h e l a s t w i l l and t e s t a m e n t . The case is remanded t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . District Court holding upheld, t h a t t h e d e e d was The j u d g m e n t of t h e i l l e g a l l y procured is t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t t h e w i l l and t h e power o f a t t o r n e y were o b t a i n e d by undue i n £ l u e n c e is s e t a s i d e and t h e will is r e i n s t a t e d and the cause is remanded c e e d i n g s on t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t . We c o n c u r : % 4 & 4 \ ~ & , Chief Justice u ~ ~ ~ e 9 q u Ju tices f o r f u r t h e r pro-
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.
