Majority
This is an appeal from a judgment denying probate of a will of December 8,1952, offered by the petitioner and appellant, Addie May West, and admitting to probate a holographic will offered by the contestant and respondent, Dorathy L. Harter, which bears the date of March 5, 1952.
The testator, Harold W. Dunne, was about 53 years old at the time of his death on March 6, 1953. Shortly after the death of his wife in February of 1952, decedent entered the Long Beach Veterans Hospital for treatment of a serious illness. Just before going into surgery decedent on March 5, 1952, duly executed a holographic will naming Chris Nelson, his deceased wife’s stepfather, Dorathy Harter, sole contestant, Donald Walsh and Earl Walsh as equal beneficiaries of his estate. Dorathy Harter, Donald Walsh and Earl Walsh are stepchildren of Dunne by a previous marriage of his deceased wife. Dorathy Harter was named as executrix without bond. Later in March, after being released from the hospital, Dunne returned to his own home, where he was cared for by Chris Nelson, his stepfather-in-law, with whom he lived. Sometime in April, Addie May West, with a friend, came to visit Mr. Dunne. There was evidence that Mrs. West and her deceased husband, Tom West, had been acquaintances of the Dunne family for several years. At the time
The trial court, sitting without a jury, found that the will of December 8th was made when the decedent was of unsound mind, without capacity to make a will because of physical and mental weakness, and also that it was induced by undue influence and fraud on the part of the proponent, Mrs. West.
The new will, executed December 8, 1952, just six days after decedent’s release from the hospital, provided for $50 bequests for the four beneficiaries under the former holographic will, and made Mrs. West the beneficiary of the residue of the estate, amounting to about $15,000.
The appellant makes two contentions, namely, there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that the deceased was of unsound mind at the time of the execution of the second will and there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that the second will was executed through undue influence and fraud.
Of course, not every degree of mental unsoundness or mental weakness will suffice to destroy testamentary capacity. The question of capacity is related to the mental condition at the time of the execution of the will. In discussing the question of general incompetence of the deceased, we shall first state the evidence which was most favorable to the contestant.
The record shows that decedent had delusions and at times was not entirely rational. Dorathy Harter testified that just before Thanksgiving of 1952, when she went to visit deceased at the West residence, he asked her why she had come to pick up a pick and shovel, and stated that it was 2:30 in the morning, although it was actually late in the afternoon or early evening. Earl Walsh and Mary Walsh were present at this time and testified they observed this incident. Mrs. Harter testified further that at about the same time, before he entered the hospital, deceased stated he was in great pain and that he was being given some kind of dope to relieve the pain; that he was irrational in his conversation in that he would start a conversation, quit it and then start on a new subject two or three minutes later. Mrs. Harter testified that shortly after the first of December she visited deceased at the West home, after he had returned from the hospital, and that he stated he wanted her to stay with her mother “until after the baby was born.” Mrs. Harter’s mother was deceased at that time. Again, prior to Thanksgiving, according to Mrs. Harter, Mrs. West told her it “ . . . wasn’t necessary for me to come down there and see Harold [decedent] . . . that he was asleep and wouldn’t know me.” Chris Nelson testified that on November 24, 1952, he observed Dunne in a “delirious condition” at Mrs. West’s home, that he was “talking out of his mind ... his mind was wandering . . .
The evidence we have related had reference to the approximate time when decedent reentered the hospital November 24, 1952, to one occasion shortly after he had left the hospital and to a visit made by Mr. and Mrs. Walsh in January or February, 1953. Aside from the claimed delusions there was testimony that on one occasion decedent was irrational in his conversation (testimony of Mrs. Harter); that on another occasion he was “talking out of his mind . . . his mind was wandering” (testimony of Mr. Nelson); upon another occasion his mind was “wandering” (testimony of Earl Walsh and testimony of Donald Walsh); that on the latter occasion decedent was “very thick-tongued . . . glassy-eyed . . . when he talked he didn’t make sense.” The court evidently believed the testimony of these witnesses and would
Lawrence L. Boyd, a subscribing witness to the December 8, 1952 will, testified he had known the deceased for about 10 years, that he appeared to be of disposing mind and memory at the time of execution, that it appeared he was executing his own judgment, and that he examined the will and discussed some of its contents at that time. Miss Pinkerton, secretary of Baird, testified that deceased appeared to be of sound, disposing mind at the time of the execution of the will, was able to walk around, and did not appear to be under the influence of opiates. She recorded a statement of the deceased after he executed the will, in which he stated two sheets of blank paper had been substituted for his holographic will without his consent, and that his reason for making Mrs. West the principal beneficiary was because she had been taking care of him. The testimony of the physicians who attended deceased was to the effect that he was of sound mental condition and not subject to adverse aftereffects from the opiates he was taking. Dr. Claude Wagner, M.D., examined deceased on November 24, 1952, and again on December 30, 1952, and testified that on both occasions he was in full possession of his mental faculties. Dr. Wagner, who had previously cared for decedent, said he was in “excellent” mental condition November 24th when he was admitted to the hospital. Dr. Boyle, who attended the deceased in the hospital from November 24, 1952, to December 2, 1952, and after January 20, 1953, until his death, testified the deceased had full possession of all his mental faculties on all occasions observed from November 24th to his death; that he observed no mental confusion and that he was mentally alert and not “dopey” after taking the codeine to relieve the pain. He testified that deceased was ambulatory when he left the hospital on December 2d and that he, Dr. Boyle, anticipated
There is a wealth of authority to the effect that evidence of deviations from normal mental processes and capacity such as those in evidence here are legally insufficient to prove want of testamentary capacity. Full discussions of this subject will be found in Estate of Perkins, 195 Cal. 699 [ 235 P. 45 ]; Estate of Selb, 84 Cal.App.2d 46 [ 190 P.2d 277 ], and Estate of Ridgway, 92 Cal.App.2d 325 [ 206 P.2d 892 ].
As to the effect of delusions upon the execution of a will, the rule is that the mental condition at the time of the execution of the will is significant. The delusion must directly influence the testamentary act; the will must result from hallucination or delusion. (Estate of Perkins, 195 Cal. 699 [ 235 P. 45 ], supra; Estate of Clark, 100 Cal.App. 357 [ 280 P. 204 ].)
There was no evidence of a delusion or hallucination which influenced the execution of the will of December 8th. Although the testimony indicated that decedent had delusions prior to November 24, 1952, and one early in December 1952, there was no evidence of any delusion on the day of execution which was the cause of or influenced the execution of the will; the testator was seriously ill and was receiving medication to ease his pain. Any misstatements of fact by deceased as to past events were merely indications of faulty memory and not of delusions.
As to the second contention of the appellant, the rule
Dorathy Harter testified that Mrs. West told her it would not be necessary for her to come down and see “Harold” (Mr. Dunne). Mrs. Harter further testified that just prior to Thanksgiving 1952, when she went to visit her stepfather at the West home, Mrs. West tried to shut the door and “I pushed it open and said I was going in to see Mr. Dunne.” This was the only evidence that Mrs. West made attempts to keep the relatives away from deceased.
Testimony of a bank representative was to the effect that decedent’s savings and checking accounts originally opened in the name of Harold W. Dunne were converted to joint tenancy in the name of Addie May West and deceased. Mrs. West also became the beneficiary of deceased’s insurance policy.
Earl Walsh, who testified he had visited Dunne practically ■every day after his return from the hospital on December 2d, said Dunne appeared to be under Mrs. West’s influence in his thinking. “One time he told me that she wanted him to sign some papers—I don’t know nothing of what they were—and he said he didn’t want to sign them.” In response to questions as to what kind of papers, Walsh testified, “He didn’t say. . . . He didn’t sign them.” He also testified that Mrs. West told him, “ . . . that if I stuck by her and Chris, I would be taken care of.” Mary Walsh also testified she overheard this conversation; that Mrs. West wanted “ . . . Chris, Mr. Nelson and my husband to stick together until this trial was over, that she would see that he would be taken care of . . .” Apparently this occurred during or shortly before the trial. Muriel Pinkerton, in answer to a question as to whether Mrs. West was present at the time of execution of the will, stated “I heard someone else in the house, but I did not see her.”
Certainly Mrs. West had an opportunity to exert undue influence upon deceased. It is well settled, however, that a mere showing of opportunity to exert undue influence is not sufficient to support a finding that it was exerted. (Estate of Fleming, 199 Cal. 750 [ 251 P. 637 ]; Estate of Bryson, 191 Cal. 521 [ 217 P. 525 ].) A suspicion of undue influence is not sufficient to overthrow a will. (Estate of Kilborn, 162 Cal. 4 , 13 [ 120 P. 762 ].) Nor does conduct inspiring affection and gratitude constitute undue influence. (Estate of Doty, 89 Cal.App.2d 747 [ 201 P.2d 823 ].)
Miss Pinkerton testified that the will was prepared before she and Mr. Baird went to see decedent. Mr. Baird had
The court found that decedent was under the influence of opiates when he signed the will. There was no evidence to that effect. There was no evidence of the existence of a trustee relationship between Mrs. West and decedent and no evidence that Mrs. West used undue influence to bring about execution of the will. The court found that the will was induced by the fraudulent representations of Mrs. West. There was no evidence of any false or fraudulent representation. It may be conceded that the generosity of decedent to Mrs. West was out of proportion to what she deserved, but that was for him to decide. He had a right to place his own valuation upon her kindness and her services. She gave him a home and care during his fatal illness and since he was competent to declare what her ministrations were worth to him, and acted voluntarily, it does not reflect upon the validity of the will that he may have been overgenerous.
The judgment is reversed and the court is directed to make new findings and conclusions consistent with the views herein expressed and to admit to probate the will of December 8, 1952, and to vacate the order admitting to probate the will of March 5, 1952.
Wood (Parker), J., and Vallée, J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 1, 1955, and respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 9, 1955. Carter, J., and Schauer, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.
Cases cited
- Smith v. Spaulding 200 Cal. 152 p. 220
- Fink v. Bigelow 195 Cal. 699 p. 223
- Morris v. Selb 84 Cal.App.2d 46 p. 223
- Ridgway v. Ridgway 92 Cal.App.2d 325 p. 223
- Dobbel v. Reardon 100 Cal.App. 357 p. 223
- Travis v. Straus 170 Cal. 418 at 424 p. 224
- In re Estate of Carithers 156 Cal. 422 at 428 p. 224
- Corbin v. Gleason 164 Cal. 756 at 765 p. 224
- Lavinburg v. Schwalbe 161 Cal. 536 at 543 p. 224
- Llewellyn v. Cheesewright 83 Cal.App.2d 534 at 561 p. 224
- Fleming v. Dover 199 Cal. 750 p. 225
- Ashby v. Bryson 191 Cal. 521 p. 225
- In re Estate of Kilborn 162 Cal. 4 at 13 p. 225
- California Trust Co. v. Nielson 89 Cal.App.2d 747 p. 225