No. 80-72
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE
OF MABEL I. COX
Appeal from:
District Court of the Tenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Fergus.
Honorable LeRoy McKinnon, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Parrish, Knopp and O'Hare, Lewistown, Montana
Bradley Parrish argued, Lewistown, Montana
For Respondent:
William Berger argued, Lewistown, Montana
Submitted:
Decided:
Filed:
EC 2 4 l$o$
November 20, 1980
BEc 2 4 1980
Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C. Sheehy d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e
Court.
Appellant,
Raymond Cox a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r
t h e Tenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t Court,
admitting
the
holographic
of
will
of
Fergus County,
Mabel
Cox
I.
to
probate.
The
bearing
determinative
unexplained
discovered,
markings
be
is
whether
through
a
will,
text
its
when
h a s been r e v o k e d by c a n c e l l a t i o n p u r s u a n t
t o s e c t i o n 72-2-321,
shall
question
presumed
We h o l d
MCA.
canceled
by
the
that
such a w i l l
testator
with
the
leaving
six
i n t e n t t o revoke, u n l e s s proven otherwise.
Mabel
Cox
died
on
children as survivors.
May
16,
1979,
The d e c e d e n t ' s h o l o g r a p h i c w i l l
was f o u n d i n h e r bedroom n i g h t s t a n d t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y
by r e s p o n d e n t R i c h a r d Cox, p r o p o n e n t o f t h e w i l l .
The
w i l l
handwriting
is
with
written
entirely
two d i f f e r e n t - c o l o r e d
s i n g l e p a g e of n o t e b o o k p a p e r .
May 3 0 ,
1973.
in
decedent's
inks,
on
a
I t i s s i g n e d and d a t e d
The w i l l c o n s i s t s o f
seven paragraphs
l i s t e d down t h e p a g e , p l u s a n e i g h t h p a r a g r a p h s l a n t e d
i n t h e lower
right-hand
corner.
Eight large X ' s
have
b e e n drawn on t h e s h e e t s u c h t h a t a l l p a r a g r a p h s e x c e p t
the
slanted
writing
have
p a r t i a l l y t h r o u g h them.
and T e s t a m o n y "
lined
out
follows:
three
through
them
or
A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e words " W i l l
( s i c ) which
times.
markings
begin
Thus,
the w i l l
the
will
have been
appears
as
I
-,
c
f '
.
-
J /
2
.
v-- -
C
.L-i_-q
I
4,
--
-- L. b .I/C
--
---I77 it, i $ -i ,f Y -~
J'VtL:: ;\ Sq
(7 i
'
i I Y.7'3
.
- :
"
i
- I: k p*g. ;- 4 ~'a kr 4 J d A? ~~~~9~~
y
- -
L
Gc
11
'/GU-$
1:;
,f
i
The
principal
decedent's
Richard
home,
Cox.
asset
which
Other
of
would
assets
the
pass
Cox
will
to
certificates
of
under
include
is
estate
the
d e p o s i t v a l u e d a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y $2,500 a p i e c e , one h e l d
i n j o i n t t e n a n c y b e t w e e n d e c e d e n t and e a c h c h i l d e x c e p t
Richard;
and
household
furnishings
which
would
pass
v a r i o u s l y t o a l l s i x c h i l d r e n under t h e w i l l .
On
June
District
11,
Court
1979,
for
an
Raymond
Cox
adjudication
petitioned
the
intestacy
and
of
appointment of a p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e .
Thereafter,
R i c h a r d Cox p e t i t i o n e d t h e c o u r t f o r f o r m a l p r o b a t e o f
the w i l l .
The p e t i t i o n s w e r e c o n s o l i d a t e d f o r h e a r i n g .
Neither
which
party
explained
presented
the
origin
evidence
was
also
intended
disposition
evidence
of
the
inconclusive
of
at
her
the
hearing
markings.
as
to
The
decedent's
estate.
Testimony
indicated t h a t during the period s h o r t l y preceding her
d e a t h , d e c e d e n t had i n d i c a t e d t h a t s h e w i s h e d t o t r e a t
a l l children equally,
receive
the
house.
largest
portion
and t h a t
Since
of
the
s h e wished
the
home
estate,
Richard
comprised
these
to
the
expressed
i n t e n t i o n s were m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e .
The
District
explanation
finding,
for
the
Court
the X ' s
court
s u f f i c i e n t proof
of
found
that
on t h e w i l l .
concluded
there
was
no
Based on t h i s
that
there
was
an i n t e n t t o revoke t h e w i l l ,
granted t h e p e t i t i o n f o r formal probate.
no
and
Opponents of
the w i l l appeal.
Appellant
argues
the
court
erred
in
concluding,
based
on t h e
f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e r e was no
proof
on
record
markings,
the
explaining
the
presence
of
the
t h a t t h e r e e x i s t e d no s u f f i c i e n t p r o o f o f a n
intent
to
revoke
the
The
will.
correct
approach,
a p p e l l a n t s u b m i t s , is t h a t t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e m a r k i n g s
on
a
discovered
will
should
give
mutilation
rise
were
to
in
a
custody
presumption
peformed
i n t e n t i o n t o revoke.
by
the
of
that
a
decedent
the
a c t s of
testator
with
the
I n r e Kernper's E s t a t e ( 1 9 4 4 ) , 1 5 7
Kan. 7 2 7 , 1 4 5 P.2d 1 0 3 .
The
the
evidentiary
We a g r e e .
burdens
will
for
p r e s c r i b e d by s e c t i o n 72-3-310,
contests
are
MCA:
". . .
P r o p o n e n t s of a w i l l have t h e
b u r d e n of e s t a b l i s h i n g p r i m a f a c i e
proof of due execution i n a l l c a s e s
and, i f they a r e a l s o p e t i t i o n e r s ,
p r i m a f a c i e p r o o f o f d e a t h and v e n u e .
C o n t e s t a n t s of a w i l l have t h e burden
of e s t a b l i s h i n g l a c k of testamentary
i n t e n t o r c a p a c i t y , undue i n f l u e n c e ,
fraud, duress, mistake, or revocation.
P a r t i e s have t h e u l t i m a t e burden of
persuasion a s t o matters with respect
t o which t h e y h a v e t h e i n i t i a l b u r d e n
of p r o o f . "
This procedure
common
Mont.
law.
is
essentially
a
codification
of
the
See,
4 6 1 , 466,
I n r e Colbert's Estate (1904), 31
972.
78 P. 9 7 1 , / T h e r e i s no q u e s t i o n t h a t
p r o p o n e n t ' s i n i t i a l b u r d e n h a s b e e n met.
t h e c a s e is t h e c o n t e s t a n t ' s
The f o c a l p o i n t o f
burden t o prove revocation.
R e v o c a t i o n by a c t may be
e f f e c t e d only pursuant t o s e c t i o n 72-2-321(2),
w i l l or
any p a r t t h e r e o f
is revoked:
. . .
MCA:
"A
(2)
by
being burned, t o r n , canceled, o b l i t e r a t e d , o r destroyed
w i t h t h e i n t e n t and f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f r e v o k i n g i t by
t h e t e s t a t o r o r by a n o t h e r p e r s o n i n h i s p r e s e n c e and
by h i s d i r e c t i o n . "
Clearly,
sufficient
remains
to
the
revoke
legible
obliterated.
acts
and
Intent
a
of
will,
the
to
cancellation
although
signature
revoke
is
the
has
the
here
are
writing
not
been
controlling
factor,
rather
than
the
manifests that intent.
are
then
token of
of
the
act
which
The form and e x t e n t o f t h e a c t s
unimportant
physical
severity
as
the
long
as
they
constitute
i n t e n t t o revoke.
Kemper,
a
145
P.2d a t 108.
T h i s i s a c a s e of
addresses
f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n i n s o f a r a s it
t h e q u e s t i o n of
c o n t e x t of
presumed
i n t e n t within
Nevertheless,
a canceled w i l l .
the
t h i s Court
h a s p r e v i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d t h e same q u e s t i o n w i t h i n t h e
will
destroyed/lost
Hartman
(1977),
Revocation
by
context.
172
either
Matter
Mont.
225,
destruction
g o v e r n e d by s e c t i o n 72-2-321,
revocation
degree;
differ,
we
and
effect,
find
the
Estate
563
or
P.2d
of
569.
cancellation
is
The two means o f
MCA.
in
of
only
as
rationale
a
matter
of
of
Hartman
c o n t r o l l i n g i n t h i s c l o s e l y analogous s i t u a t i o n .
We t h e r e f o r e h o l d t h a t where a w i l l h a s b e e n i n
t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e t e s t a t o r and i s d i s c o v e r e d among h e r
canceled
or
effects
in
testator
s h a l l be presumed
a
condition,
the
t o have done t h e a c t w i t h
Hartman,
t h e i n t e n t t o revoke.
5 1 0 1 , a t 554.
defaced
supra; Atkinson, W i l l s
P a g e , The Law o f W i l l s
29.140 a t 700-
§
01.
c o n t e s t a n t may,
A w i l l
instances,
meeting
utilize
his
proponent
this
burden
then
has
of
the
i n t h i s and o t h e r s i m i l a r
rebuttable
proving
burden
of
s u f f i c i e n t evidence regarding
circumstances t o rebut
presumption
revocation.
going
in
The
forward
with
r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s and
t h e presumption.
Hartman,
563
P.2d a t 574.
Proponent,
opponents'
at
argument,
momentary p o s s i b l e
emphasized
access
to
three
the w i l l
and
o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e s t r o y i t on t h e e v e n i n g o f Mrs.
decease.
Cox'
the f a c t that the w i l l contestants
However,
had a f l e e t i n g o p p o r t u n i t y t o tamper w i t h t h e w i l l d o e s
not,
of
is
a c i r c u m s t a n c e w h i c h m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d w i t h o t h e r
proof.
itself,
Matter
overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n ;
of
Travers'
282, 589 P.2d 1 3 1 4 .
Estate
but,
rather
( 1 9 7 8 ) , 121 Ariz.
Here t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d
t h e r e was no e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e m a r k i n g s .
Proponent's
c o n j e c t u r e regarding t h e o r i g i n of t h e markings a s i d e ,
the
finding
the
record
is n o t a c l e a r l y erroneous e v a l u a t i o n of
and
M.R.Civ.P.
may
The
not
be
set
presumed
aside.
Rule
revocation,
52(a),
standing
unrebutted, therefore controls.
Proponent
finally
submits
that
if
the
will
is
deemed r e v o k e d , i t s h o u l d be a d m i t t e d t o p r o b a t e u n d e r
the doctrine of
the
rules
set
(1978),
dependent r e l a t i v e revocation.
forth
Mont
.
in
Matter
,
587
of
P.2d
Estate
1307,
Patten
of
35 S t . R e p .
1983,
t h a t doctrine c l e a r l y cannot apply here,
there
i s no
superseding w i l l
Under
where
and no e v i d e n c e o f
any
s p e c i f i c a l l y adopted
the
i n t e n t t o e x e c u t e one.
This Court has n o t y e t
doctrine
of
dependent
relative
requiring
that
consideration.
however,
that
dependent
revocation
Authorities
relative
in
a
case
indicate,
revocation
only
a p p l i e s where t h e r e i s a c l e a r i n t e n t o f t h e t e s t a t o r
t h a t t h e r e v o c a t i o n o f a n o l d w i l l b e c o n d i t i o n a l upon
t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e new w i l l .
The c o n d i t i o n m u s t be
p r o v e n by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f p r o b a t i v e v a l u e , and
e v i d e n c e of
t h e i n t e n t c a n n o t be l e f t t o s p e c u l a t i o n ,
supposition, conjecture or possibility.
Further, there
m u s t be a n i m m e d i a t e i n t e n t t o make a new w i l l , and t h e
new w i l l m u s t be e x e c u t e d c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h o r s h o r t l y
1309.
None o f t h e s e c r i t e r i a h a v e b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d .
and
the
remanded
old.
P.2d
destruction
Reversed
of
Patten,
after
with
587
at
instructions to grant
t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a d j u d i c a t i o n o f i n t e s t a c y and t o d e n y
t h e p e t i t i o n f o r formal probate.
We Concur:
Chief J u s t i c e
Justices
/