ESTATE OF AAGESON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 85-69 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F T H E S T A T E O F MONTANA 1985 I N THE MATTER O F THE E S T A T E O F ASMUND AAGESON, D e c e a s e d . A P P E A L FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e T w e l f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of H i l l , T h e H o n o r a b l e M. J a m e s S o r t e , Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O F RECORD: For A p p e l l a n t : Moses Law F i r m , Billings, Montana For R e s p o n d e n t : Aronow, Anderson, Beatty & Lee, Shelby, M o n t a n a Waldo Spangelo, H a v r e , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: Clerk A p r i l 25, July 1985 J u s t i c e Frank £3. t h e Court. Three c h i l d r e n o f t h e December 7 , Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f Morrison, Mr. t h e deceased, Asmund Aageson, appeal 1984, o r d e r of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s i n g t h . e i r p e t i t i o n s f o r p r o b a t e o f wil.1.s d a t e d September 5 , 1980, and J u l y 1 5 , 1980. By t h a t same o r d e r , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a d m i t t e d i n t o p r o b a t e a w i l l d a t e d Decem1964, t o g e t h e r w i t h i t s two c o d i c i l s , d a t e d December b e r 30, 1 7 , 1 9 7 4 , and November 1 0 , 1-975. W e affirm the order of the D i s t r i c t Court. Asmund and E l l a Aageson, husband farm n o r t h o f G i l d f o r d , Montana, 1,980 a c r e s . and w i f e , operated a c o n s i s t i n g of approximately They had f i v e c h i l d r e n , o n e o f whom p r e d e c e a s e d h i s parents. The r e m a i n i n g f o u r a r e A r v i n , ( L o r r a i n e ) and Nan. Eugene, Delia L o r r a i n e and Nan moved from Montana i n t h e 1 9 4 0 ' s and now l i v e i n C a l i f o r n i a and Washington, r e s p e c tively. Eugene area. Arvin before a c q u i r e d h i s own served returning adjacent farm to land in the and the farm i n military family entered t h e same g e n e r a l d u r i n g World farm. into He a then War I1 acquired farming p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h h i s f a t h e r i n e i t h e r 1948 o r 1949. Asmund and E l l a r e t i r e d from a c t i v e f a r m i n g i n 1951 and moved t o Seattle, Washington. To f a c i l i t a t e h i s c o n t i n u e d o p e r a t i o n o f t h e f a r m , A r v i n was g r a n t e d a power o f a t t o r n e y p e r m i t t i n g him t o s e l l g r a i n , s i g n c h e c k s and e n t e r i n t o farm programs. However, his parents' Pursuant attorney, Mr. h e was n o t a l l o w e d t o s e l l o r encumber land. to an estate Kilbourne, plan recommended by Asmund's Asmund and A r v i n t e r m i n a t e d t h e i r p a r t n e r s h i p i n December 1964 and e n t e r e d i n t o a l e a s e a g r e e ment. Asmund and E l l a a l s o e x e c u t e d w i l l s d a t e d December 3 0 , 1964, whereby A r v i n was to receive 1,020 acres while the remaining 960 a c r e s w e r e t o p a s s o n e - t h i r d e a c h t o Eugene, L o r r a i n e and Nan. Four Ella's hundred name. eighty Under i n h e r i t e d by A r v i n , acres of will, Ella's those farm land acres were Eugene, By Asmund's be L o r r a i n e and Nan, The r e m a i n i n g 1,500 a c r e s w e r e i n Asmund's equally. to in F u r t h e r , t h e o i l and g a s r o y a l t i e s on l a n d s w e r e t o go t o A r v i n , name. A r v i n was t o receive 540 a c r e s w h i l e Eu- will, L o r r a i n e and Nan w e r e e a c h t o h a v e 3 2 0 a c r e s . gene, were s u b j e c t t o Asmund's l i f e i n t e r e s t i n t h e income from t h e l a n d . those the These l a n d s were s u b j e c t t o t h e same r o y a l t y r e s e r v a t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n Ella's w i l l . Thereafter, i n t h e e a r l y 1970s, M r . Kilbourne advised Arvin r e g a r d i n g h i s own e s t a t e and recommended t h a t "a g e n e r a t i o n s k i p p i n g d e v i c e " b e employed t o p r e v e n t A r v i n ' s e s t a t e from b e i n g t a x e d f o r t h e farm l a n d s . A c c o r d i n g l y , Asmund and E l l a e x e c u t e d c o d i c i l s t o t h e i r w i l l s on December 1 7 , 1 9 7 4 , v e s t i n g t h e l a n d s A r v i n was t o r e c e i v e upon t h e i r d e a t h s i n Arvin's sons, David and V e r g e s . David and V e r g e s had re- mained a t home, a s s i s t i n g t h e i r f a t h e r w i t h t h e f a m i l y f a r m . Arvin and h i s sons subsequently formed a p a r t n e r s h i p , Aageson G r a i n and C a t t l e . O November 1 0 , 1975, Asmund and n Ella 1964 f a r m l e a s e t o Arvin w i t h a replaced the original new l e a s e t o t h e p a r t n e r s h i p . The two l e a s e s a r e v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l except t h e lease t o t h e partnership: a l l p r o p e r t i e s mentioned t o the lessee, f o r $118,680, i n t h e 1964 w i l l s ; upon Asmund's death, and (2) granted t h e option t o purchase t h e 960 a c r e s d e v i s e d t o Eugene, Nan i n Asmund' s 1964 w i l l , (1) c o v e r e d L o r r a i n e and excepting t h e royalty i n t e r e s t s . The $118,680 r e p r e s e n t e d t h e f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e l a n d a t that time. (The f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e l a n d was $356,410 a t t h e t i m e o f Asmund's d e a t h . ) The s e c o n d c o d i c i l , a l s o d a t e d November 1 0 , 1 9 7 5 , r e f e r e n c e d t h e new l e a s e a n d p r o v i d e d t h a t should t h e o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e b e e x e r c i s e d , E u g e n e , L o r r a i n e a n d Nan w o u l d r e c e i v e t h e proceeds i n equal shares. In the spring of 1 9 7 8 , David and V e r g e s p u r c h a s e d f a m i l y farm from Arvin. the purchase, Asmund l a n d s t h e y had Eugene, option the I n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e f i n a n c i n g of and Ella executed devised t o Arvin. a mortqage on the The 960 a c r e s d e v i s e d t o L o r r a i n e a n d Nan w e r e n o t m o r t g a g e d s o t h a t i f t h e t o p u r c h a s e was n o t e x e r c i s e d , unencumbered. the l a n d s would p a s s W i t h Asmund's a n d E l l a ' s c o n s e n t , t h e e x i s t i n g f a r m l e a s e was a s s i g n e d t o D a v i d a n d V e r g e s . Asmund a n d E l l a h a d spring of s o l d t h e i r home i n S e a t t l e i n t h e 1 9 7 4 a n d moved i n t o t h e Tacoma L u t h e r a n Home a n d R e t i r e m e n t Community i n Tacoma, W a s h i n g t o n , m i l e s from Nan's home. approximately 12 Nan v i s i t e d h e r p a r e n t s e v e r y week- e n d , t a k i n g t h e m s h o p p i n g a n d t o h e r home f o r S u n d a y d i n n e r . Arvin phoned at progress of times year. a the l e a s t weekly farm. to update his father on the He also visited h i s parents several and L o r r a i n e ' s contact with t h e i r Eugene's p a r e n t s was more l i m i t e d . E l l a Aageson d i e d o n F e b r u a r y 2 8 , 1 9 7 9 . Probate o f her 1 9 6 4 w i l l a n d i t s 1 9 7 4 a n d 1 9 7 5 c o d i c i l s w a s commenced i n t h e s p r i n g o f 1980 i n H i l l C o u n t y , M o n t a n a , w i t h A r v i n a n d Eugene appointed a s co-executors of the estate. However, despite t h r e e i n q u i r i e s from t h i s C o u r t , a s o f t h e d a t e o f t h e t r i a l of t h i s c a u s e E u g e n e h a d f a i l e d t o e x e c u t e t h e f i n a l p a p e r s . T h e r e was l i t t l e d i s c o r d w i t h i n t h e A a g e s o n f a m i l y u n t i l Ella's death, when E u g e n e , L o r r a i n e a n d Nan learned of o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n t h e farm. 9 1 s t b i r t h d a y p a r t y on F e b r u a r y 2 5 , the A t Asmund's 1 9 8 0 , t h e f a m i l y members and a m o d e r a t o r h e l d a m e e t i n g a t w h i c h A r v i n w a s t o l d o f h i s siblings' dissatisfaction. t h e o p t i o n t o purchase. was r e q u e s t e d . Arvin was a d v i s e d n o t t o e x e r c i s e An a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e f a r m ' s p r o c e e d s Nan demanded t h a t Eugene b e g i v e n h i s d e v i s e d land immediately. A r v i n r e f u s e d t o a c q u i e s c e t o t h e demands of h i s siblings. Asmund was present, but did not participate at the H e a p p a r e n t l y was u n a b l e t o e i t h e r h e a r o r u n d e r - meeting. s t a n d what was o c c u r r i n g . I n May 1 9 8 0 , Nan d e t e r m i n e d t h a t h e r attorney t o represent Peterson, worked, the and attorney requested some e s t a t e m a t t e r s . interests. his for that the he f a t h e r needed a n She c o n t a c t e d Warren University for which v i s i t w i t h Asmund she regarding Though a t t r i a l s h e d e n i e d h a v i n g done s o , Nan a p p a r e n t l y f u r n i s h e d P e t e r s o n w i t h c o p i e s o f a t l e a s t h e r f a t h e r ' s w i l l and c o d i c i l s , and p o s s i b l y t h e farm l e a s e . A t a m e e t i n g on May 2 7 , 1980, Asmund and P e t e r s o n d i s c u s s e d t h e f a c t s t h a t A r v i n ' s f i x e d p r i c e on t h e o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e was t o o low and would b e u n f a i r t o Asmund's o t h e r c h i l d r e n , and t h a t A r v i n needed t o p r o v i d e h i s f a t h e r w i t h an a c c o u n t ing of t h e farm's business. Further, Peterson suggested t o Asmund, that per inquire a s price to Asmund's written. Arvin . his to deposition, h i s willingness reflect to faFr market the Peterson renegotiate value of Upon Asmund's Arvin's reply approval, was an the letter t o Arvin, Arvin the the to purchase f a r m upon The l e t t e r was d e a t h and t o demand a n a c c o u n t i n g . l e t t e r was unresponsive, which was shown t o Asmund by P e t e r s o n . another write angry sent to letter, Peterson t h e n wrote which a p p a r e n t l y went unanswered. S u b s e q u e n t l y , a t a J u l y 1, 1 9 8 0 , m e e t i n g a t t h e n u r s i n g home, Peterson presented Asmund with documents revoking A r v i n ' s power o f a t t o r n e y and g r a n t i n g a new, g e n e r a l power of attorney to Nan, including the right to s e l l Asmund's Those documents w e r e s i g n e d and a d e c i s i o n was made t o land. d r a f t a new w i l l , e l i m i n a t i n g A r v i n and h i s c h i l d r e n . admitting that Peterson testified thought such a w i l l will, will npw the at his was not entirely deposition that equitable, and he While Asmund would be more e q u i t a b l e t h a n t h e 1964 e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e A r v i n and h i s s o n s would b e r e t a i n i n g t h e option t o purchase a t a p r i c e s u b s t a n t i a l l y below f a i r market value. Because h e was c o n c e r n e d a b o u t Asmund's a will, execute Randolph. Dr. Peterson competency t o c o n t a c t e d Asmund's Randolph r e s p o n d e d doctor, Ernest t h a t on t h e b a s i s o f h i s monthly v i s i t s w i t h Asmund, h e was u n c e r t a i n w h e t h e r on a n y given day Asmund would be competent to execu,te v. a .b,will. Randolph' s p r e s e n c e a t t h e Peterson t h e r e f o r e requested D r . t i m e o f t h e a c t u a l e x e c u t i o n , J u l y 1 5 , 1980. On t h a t d a t e , D r . personal data, Randolph q u e s t i o n e d Asmund c o n c e r n i n g h i s c h i l d r e n , h i s p r o p e r t y and t h e n a t u r e of h i s a c t i o n s u n d e r t h e new w i l l . Both D r . Randolph and P e t e r - s o n w e r e t h e n s a t i s f i e d t h a t Asmund was c o m p e t e n t t o e x e c u t e a will and the will was signed. were There no other witnesses. Arvin was informed a t t o r n e y and N a n ' s 1980. of general the revocation power o f of h i s power a t t o r n e y on August H e was n o t t o l d o f t h e n e w w i l l . of 11, Upon l e g a l a d v i c e , A r v i n p r e s e n t e d h i s f a t h e r w i t h a new power o f a t t o r n e y f o r himself, a s w e l l a s a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e e x i s t i n g 1975 farm l e a s e p r o v i d i n g t h a t i f a n y farm l a n d s w e r e s o l d , A r v i n would have t h e r i g h t of f i r s t refusal documents were s i g n e d i n Asmund's At t o m e e t the price. room on August 29, These 1980. l e a s t f o u r n u r s i n g home s t a f f members and a l e g a l secre- t a r y w i t n e s s e d t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e documents. witnesses testified that t h o u g h t h e y had been Most o f t h o s e skeptical at f i r s t , t h e y t h o u g h t upon s e e i n g and t a l k i n g w i t h Asmund t h a t h e was c o m p e t e n t t o e x e c u t e t h e documents. Asmund a p p a r e n t l y t o l d Nan t h a t A r v i n had had him s i g n some n e w documents. Nan t h e n c o n t a c t e d P e t e r s o n , who recom- mended t h a t Asmund b e b r o u g h t t o s e e him. Eugene t o o k Asmund t o P e t e r s o n ' s o f f i c e on September 5 , 1980. Asmund was u n a b l e t o remember what documents h e had s i g n e d f o r A r v i n . fore, There- a f t e r s a t i s f y i n g h i m s e l f t h a t Asmund was a g a i n compe- t e n t t o execute a w i l l , P e t e r s o n had Asmund r e - e x e c u t e the J u l y 1 5 , 1980, w i l l and s i g n documents r e v o k i n g a n y power o f a t t o r n e y g i v e n t o A r v i n and r e e s t a b l i s h i n g a g e n e r a l power o f a t t o r n e y i n Nan. A r v i n t o o k no r e s p o n s i v e a c t i o n . ber 24, 1980, t h r o u g h l a w y e r P e t e r s o n , i n Tacoma, and to However Nan, on Octo- Washington, have estate. A herself t o have Asmund appointed guardian ad litem Asmund i n t h o s e p r o c e e d i n g s . declared guardian was of incompetent his appointed person to and represent The c o u r t s u b s e q u e n t l y a p p o i n t - ed Nan g u a r d i a n o f Asmund's p e r s o n . m e n d a t i o n o f Asmund's petitioned the court g u a r d i a n ad However, on t h e recom- litem, a bank i n Tacoma, Washington, was a p p o i n t e d g u a r d i a n o f Asmund's e s t a t e . Little else relevant to Asmund's d e a t h on J u l y 1 8 , 1983. the 1980 w i l l s this case occurred At that time, Nan a c q u i r e d from P e t e r s o n and g a v e them t o Eugene. August 3 , 1983, Arvin and Eugene, a s c o - e x e c u t o r s will, until On o f t h e 1964 m e t w i t h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e a t t o r n e y s t o o b t a i n Asmund's 1964 w i l l and t h e 1974 and 1975 c o d i c i l s from Asmund's s a f e t y d e p o s i t box. They b o t h s i g n e d a p e t i t i o n for p r o b a t e o f t h a t w i l l t h a t same d a y . disclosing Arvin's the However, t h e n e x t m o r n i n g , s t i l l w i t h o u t existence of the 1980 w i l l s , a t t o r n e y and a d v i s e d him n o t t o Eugene called f i l e the petition. N o t h i n g happened u n t i l O c t o b e r 1 2 , 1 9 8 3 , when A r v i n , one of t h e co-executors of 1964 w i l l , the as filed a petition f o r p r o b a t e o f t h a t w i l l and accompanying c o d i c i . 1 ~ . N e g o t i a t i o n s between Arvin's and E u g e n e ' s a t t o r n e y s postponed h e a r i n g on t h a t p e t i t i o n u n t i l November 29, on t h e e v e n i n g o f November 28, 1983. 1983, Eugene's the Finally, attorney in- formed A r v i n ' s a t t o r n e y o f t h e September 5 , 1980, w i l l . . Eugene November 29, that w i l l filed 1983. f o r probate on t h e morning o f D u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n s t o probate t h e two w i l l s , made o f t h e J u l y 3.5, held that same d a y , Further, 1980, w i l l . no m e n t i o n was Eugene t o l d t h e judge t h a t h e had n o t produced t h e September 1980 w i l l e a r l i er it because ... he "didn't think we would have [blecause we could settle o u t of November 29, 1983, a t p. 25.) to produce court.'' (Tr. o f No d e t e r m i n a t i o n regarding which w i l l t o p r o b a t e was r e a c h e d t h a t d a y and t h e m a t t e r was continued. The n e x t h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r was h e l d O c t o b e r 22 and 23, 1984, f o l l o w i n g which t h e t r i a l j u d g e a d m i t t e d t h e 1964 w i l l and accompanying c o d i c i l s i n t o p r o b a t e . In h i s order, t h e t r i a l j u d g e h e l d b o t h t h a t Asmund was n o t c o m p e t e n t t o e x e c u t e t h e 1980 w i l l s and t h a t Asmund had been u n d u l y i n f l u enced i n e x e c u t i n g t h o s e w i l l s . I n t h e i r a p p e a l o f t h a t o r d e r , Eugene, Nan and L o r r a i n e r a i s e t h e following issues: 1. to Was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t s u b s t a n t i a l , support Aageson was the District incompetent Court's on J u l y c r e d i b l e evidence conclusion 15, 1980, at that the Asmund t i m e he e x e c u t e d h i s l a s t w i l l and t e s t a m e n t o f J u l y 1 5 , 1.980? 2. to Was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t s u b s t a n t i a l , support the District Court's c r e d i b l e evidence conclusion that Asmund Aageson was incompetent on September 5, 1980, when he executed his Last Will and Testament dated September 5, 1980? 3. to Was there sufficient substantia1, credible evidence support the District Court's conclusion that Asmund Aageson was under the undue influence of Nan Nolkleberg, Eugene Aageson and/or their agents on July 15, 1980, when he executed his last will and testament? 4. to Was there sufficient substantial, credible evidence support the District Court's conclusion that Asmund Aageson was under the undue influence of Nan Nolkleberg, Eugene Aageson or their agents on September 5, 1980, when he executed his last will and testament? There is some question about whether a testator can be both incompetent and unduly influenced at the same time. Here the trial incompetent and judge found this testator to be the subject of undue influence. both Several cases have held that if you are incompetent then you cannot be the subject of undue influence as the latter presupposes testamentary capacity. (S.D. 1919), 172 N.W. 1940), 136 S.W.2d writers. 638. For example see Johnson v . 676; Moore v. Horne Shaver (Tex.Civ.App. This view has been criticized by text In T. Atkinson, - - Wills Law of (2d ed. 1953) at page 253, the author states: "At the outset it is important to notice language which is sometimes found to the effect that undue influence, fraud and mistake presume a mentally competent testator. It is true that if the testator is incompetent, the other elements may be considered immaterial, for his will is invalid for lack of testamentary capacity alone. However, many wills are contested both on the ground of incapacity and also because of undue influence, fraud, or mistake. It has been held that a will may be invalid for both mental incapacity and undue influence, and that the matters are so closely related that the courts will consider them together. These grounds are not mutually inconsistent in the sense that proof of one disproves the others." (Footnotes omitted) I t i s t r u e t h a t i f a t e s t a t o r i s incompetent t h a t should end t h e inquiry. However, t e s t a m e n t a r y c a p a c i t y and undue i n f l u e n c e may b e c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r i n t h e s e n s e t h a t one who h a s a weak w i l l i s more s u b j e c t t o i n f l u e n c e . case the evidence of sufficient to support incompetency, the trial In t h i s standing alone, court's finding of is not mental. However, t h e e v i d e n c e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t incapacity. t h e t e s t a t o r was m e n t a l l y weak and h i g h l y s u g g e s t i b l e . This, t a k e n t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e e v i d e n c e o f undue i n f l u e n c e , s u p p o r t s the trial court's finding that there was in fact undue influence exercised. Undue i n f l u e n c e i s d e f i n e d i n 5 28-2-407, MCA. "Undue i n f l u e n c e c o n s i s t s i n : " (1) t h e u s e by o n e i n whom a c o n f i d e n c e i s r e p o s e d by a n o t h e r o r who h o l d s a r e a l o r 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 confidence o r a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e purpose o f o b t a i n i n g an u n f a i r a d v a n t a g e o v e r him; " ( 2 ) t a k i n g an u n f a i r advantage a n o t h e r ' s weakness o f mind; o r of " ( 3 ) t a k i n g 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 advantage o f another' s n e c e s s i t i e s o r distress." I n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r o r n o t undue i n f l u e n c e h a s b e e n e x e r c i s e d on a t e s t a t o r making a w i l l , a c o u r t must c o n s i d e r : . (1) Confidentia 1 relationship of person attempting to influence testator; the the " ( 2 ) . The p h y s i c a l condition of the t e s t a t o r a s it a f f e c t s h i s a b i l i t y t o withstand t h e influence; . " (3) The m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n o f t h e t e s t a t o r a s it a f f e c t s h i s a b i l i t y t o withstand t h e influence; " ( 4 ) . The u n n a t u r a l n e s s o f t h e d i s p o s i t i o n a s it r e l a t e s t o showing an u n b a l anced mind o r a mind e a s i l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o undue i n f l u e n c e ; and " ( 5 ) . The demands may affect they and i m p o r t u n i t i e s a s particular testator taking into consideration the time, the place, and all the surrounding circumstances. " Blackmer v. Blackmer (1974), 165 Mont. 69, 75, 525 P.2d 559, 562. Confidential Relationship Eugene and Nan en joyed a confidentia 1 relationship with their father. They were Asmund's children and he obviously cared deeply for them. aged His physical proximity to Nan encour- a close, confidential relationship. weekend with Nan and her family. He spent every He relied on Nan for com- panionship as well as for the provision of some of his needs. (2) Physical Condition Asmund's physical condition was such that he could not easily withstand any influence placed upon him. hard of hearing, and He was very therefore unable to comprehend activities and meetings occurring around him. the This was evidenced by the fact that he was unaware of the animosity between his children at the "meeting" on his 91st birthday. He was essentially confined to a nursing home, so unable to see for himself how the farm in Montana was progressing. Even when he allegedly told Arvin he wished to visit Montana in the fall of 1980, Nan prohibited him from doing so. His confinement also limited his ability to interact with his children concerning his financial matters or to view for himself how his children were reacting toward those matters. When he was approached by one of his children in the nursing home, he was forced to rely on whatever they said as he had no independent means of verifying the information. (3 Mental Condition Asmund's the mental influence of brain disorder. c o n d i t i o n made him v e r y s u s c e p t i b l e t o those close t o him. He from a S e v e r a l n u r s i n g home s t a f f members t e s t i f i e d t h a t Asmund's memory was n o t good, t h a t be s u f f e r e d day-to- day d i s o r i e n t a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t i m e , activities. suffered p l a c e and r e g u l a r T h i s l o s s o f memory and d i s o r i e n t a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n Asmund r e l y i n g on o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s f o r a l l h i s n e e d s and information. It a l s o , according t o t h e nurses a t t h e nursing home and D r . Randolph, l e f t him v e r y s u s c e p t i b l e t o s u g g e s - t i o n and i n f l u e n c e . Dr. presented Randolph's at trial deposition, in lieu of which Dr. was Randolph videotaped testifying person, included t h e following: "Q (By M r . Moses) L e t m e n a r r o w it down i f I could. Around l a t e August and e a r l y September o f 1980-"A Okay. "Q - - w h i l e h e was l i v i n g i n t h e L u t h e r a n Aageson was l i v i n g i n t h e Home, M r . L u t h e r a n Home, was h e c a p a b l e o f e n t e r i n g i n t o amendments t o l e a s e agreements, e x t e n d i n g them, and t h a t s o r t o f t h i n g ? "A - would i m a g i n e - I he was on s u g g e s t i o n , b u t o t h e r c a n ' t s a v t h a t h e would b e . t i o n would - -, -u t - h G do i t b - t L capable - of it t h a n -t h a t I - of h i s voli170- know. "Q But h e d i d u n d e r s t a n d t h e s e t h i n g s a s t h e y were e x p l a i n e d t o him? "A I t h i n k he coul~d. "Q S u r e . And h e c o u l d v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r i n t o t h e s e i f h e u n d e r s t o o d them? "A Yes, i f t h e y w e r e e x p l a i n e d , he c o u l d u n d e r s t a n d them. I think " Q And t h e same would be t r u e o f a w i l l , and t h i s would b e a b o u t t h e t i m e o f August 29 t o September 5 o f 1980? I t h i n k he could probably." Yes, Dep. T r . a t p. 15. (emphasis s u p p l i e d ) "A and in We a l s o q u o t e t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t from t h e t e s t i m o n y o f David F a g e r l y , the Director of t h e Department o f Social S e r v i c e s a t t h e Tacoma L u t h e r a n Home: "Q A t t h e l a s t h e a r i n g h e l d i n November o f 1983, you t e s t i f i e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t you t h o u g h t t h a t M r . Aageson was e x t r e m e Ly s u b j e c t t o s u g g e s t i o n o r i n f l u e n c e o f t h e l a s t person t h a t he t a l k e d t o , i s that correct? "A Yes, p r e t t y much, y e s , I would s a y p a r t i c u l a r l y someone t h a t h e knew; maybe w i t h a c o m p l e t e s t r a n g e r , maybe n o t q u i t e a s f l e x i b l e , b u t very prone s t i l l t o influence . "Q Very p r o n e t o i n f l u e n c e ? "A Extremely, yes. "Q - someone was - - - - - t o him l i k e a If - - t o come son - r a d a u g h-t e r , - - r e p r e-s e-n t a t i v e o or a of -t h a -son o r d a u g h t e r , would - - t h e be i n ~ l i n e d o l i s t e n - - -and b e s u b i e c t e d t t o them t o i n f l u e n c e & them? d "A Y e s if represented daughter, I supplied) 1984, a t pp. h e b e l i e v e d t h e y - -c t in fa t r e i n t e r e s t s - -s - -o r of h i son b e l i e v e h e would." (emphasis ( T r . o f O c t o b e r 2 2 and 23, 243-244) Unnaturalness of Disposition As of i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e f a c t s s e t f o r t h a t t h e b e g i n n i n g t h i s opinion, e v e r y a c t i o n by Asmund s i n c e 1948 was d i - r e c t e d t o w a r d p r o t e c t i n g A r v i n ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e f a m i l y farm. Therefore, the 1980 w i l l s d i s i n h e r i t i n g Arvin and h i s s o n s a r e completely unnatural. Demands on Asmund Given S u r r o u n d i n g C i r c u m s t a n c e s Eugene, Nan and L o r r a i n e w e r e shocked and g r e a t l y u p s e t when t h e y l e a r n e d o f A r v i n ' s o p t i o n t o p u r c h a s e t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n t h e f a m i l y f a r m upon t h e i r f a t h e r ' s d e a t h . Nan ob- t a i n e d a lawyer f o r h e r f a t h e r , t h u s encouraging a change i n his testamentary disposition. Eugene hampered the i n h e r i t a n c e by A r v i n o f h i s m o t h e r ' s 4 8 0 a c r e s b y r e f u s i n g t o sign the f i n a l papers required Asmund's death, wills as a Nan and negotiating Eugene t o probate her w i l l . attempted instrument to to use prevent After the 1980 Arvin from exercising h i s option. I t i s c l e a r from t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t h a t Asmund was t h e v i c t i m o f demands by h i s c h i l d r e n t o d i s p o s e o f h i s f a r m i n t h e manner t h e y b e l i e v e d b e s t . There i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence i n support o f t h e trial judge's determination c o n s i d e r e d when that all determining whether or five not factors a to be t e s t a t o r was u n d u l y i n f l u e n c e d a t t h e t i m e h e made h i s w i l l a r e p r e s e n t i n t h i s instance. FJe c o n c u r : The o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . /

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.