In Re the Estate of Mead
336 P.3d 362
Mont.2014Background
- Decedent Robert Lee Mead died Sept. 17, 2011; two surviving daughters: Roberta Jean Mead (appellant) and Bobbi Jo Harr (appellee), who are half-sisters.
- A handwritten will dated July 18, 2011, drafted by neighbor Teryl Rouse at Robert’s dictation, bequeathed all earthly possessions to Bobbi Jo; Teryl and her husband Ralph signed as witnesses; Ralph later died.
- Ralph signed after Robert and Teryl had already signed; Teryl testified Ralph came after Robert signed and Robert stated, “no; that’s my shaky handwriting,” when Ralph questioned whose handwriting it was.
- Roberta initiated intestate proceedings; Bobbi Jo sought probate of the will; cross-motions for summary judgment followed.
- District Court found the will properly executed, Robert had testamentary capacity, and Roberta failed to show undue influence; granted summary judgment for Bobbi Jo.
- Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding Ralph’s signature valid under acknowledgment doctrine and that Roberta failed to present admissible evidence of specific acts of undue influence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roberta) | Defendant's Argument (Bobbi Jo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the will properly executed (two witnesses)? | Ralph did not witness Robert signing the will; his signature is invalid. | Ralph witnessed Robert’s acknowledgment of his signature when Robert said the signature was his shaky handwriting; thus two valid witnesses exist. | Court held Ralph’s signature valid under the acknowledgment/"verbal act" doctrine; will properly executed. |
| Admissibility of Robert’s statement at summary judgment | The statement is hearsay and inadmissible, so cannot be used to establish acknowledgment. | The statement is a verbal act (operative fact) offered to show acknowledgment, not to prove truth of asserted content, thus admissible. | Court held statement admissible under verbal act doctrine and properly considered. |
| Undue influence — burden and proof | Robert was medicated and possibly mentally impaired; Bobbi Jo’s birth certificate omits Robert—suggesting unnatural disposition and susceptibility to influence. | No evidence of specific acts of undue influence or any person using confidence/authority to procure the will; mere suspicion insufficient. | Court held Roberta failed to present admissible evidence of specific acts of undue influence; summary judgment for Bobbi Jo affirmed. |
| Testamentary capacity | Medication indicates lack of capacity. | Medical records do not show incapacity; no competent evidence that medication affected testamentary capacity. | Court found no genuine issue of material fact about capacity; Roberta did not meet burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillip R. Morrow, Inc. v. FBS Ins. Montana-Hoiness Labar, Inc., 236 Mont. 394, 770 P.2d 859 (Mont. 1989) (recognizes verbal act doctrine; out-of-court statements admissible to show that words were spoken when operative fact).
- State v. Collins, 178 Mont. 36, 582 P.2d 1179 (Mont. 1978) (verbal act doctrine permits admission to establish that words were said).
- In re Estate of Harmon, 2011 MT 84, 360 Mont. 150, 253 P.3d 821 (Mont. 2011) (contestant must present admissible evidence of specific acts showing undue influence).
- In re Estate of Wittman, 2001 MT 109, 305 Mont. 290, 27 P.3d 35 (Mont. 2001) (mere suspicion of undue influence insufficient; must show influence procured the will).
- In re Estate of Harms, 2006 MT 320, 335 Mont. 66, 149 P.3d 557 (Mont. 2006) (courts consider opportunity, susceptibility, and whether disposition is natural when assessing undue influence).