In Re the Estate of Edwards
2017 MT 93
Mont.2017Background
- Helen Edwards executed a 2010 will and trust leaving most assets to her niece G.G. Verone; in 2012 she executed a new will and amended trust favoring housekeeper Nancy Schulz and handyman Paul Degel. Helen died in 2013.
- Schulz (with co-personal representative Corette) offered the 2012 will for probate; Verone objected alleging undue influence and cross-petitioned to probate the 2010 will and validate the 2010 trust.
- The court appointed attorney Andrew Suenram as a neutral interim personal representative/special fiduciary who would not advocate for either set of testamentary documents.
- A jury returned a special verdict finding the 2012 will and trust were procured by undue influence, fraud, or duress, and that the 2012 trust complied with amendment procedure (the latter holding later deemed moot).
- The district court nevertheless declined to admit the 2010 will to probate or declare the 2010 trust enforceable, and denied Verone attorney fees; Verone appealed those denials, Schulz cross-appealed appointment, evidentiary rulings, and the jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Verone) | Defendant's Argument (Schulz/Degel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Appointment of neutral personal representative | Appointment proper; or court should appoint neutral? (Verone joined motion) | Suenram should have been required to defend the 2012 will (Schulz) | Affirmed — court properly appointed a neutral PR who need not defend either will pending determination which will is valid. |
| 2. Evidentiary rulings (admission of hospital settlement, exclusion of attorneys’ hearsay, exclusion of Dr. Evans) | Admission and exclusions were proper or harmless; Verone sought to rebut opened door | Rulings were erroneous and prejudicial | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; admission of settlement proper after door opened; attorney statements and expert exclusion permissible and not reversible error. |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence of undue influence/fraud/duress | Verone: ample circumstantial and direct evidence that Schulz/Degel exercised undue influence | Schulz/Degel: no specific acts proved; only opportunity or suspicion | Affirmed — jury verdict supported by substantial credible evidence (confidential relationship, opportunity, susceptibility, circumstantial acts). |
| 4. Effect of verdict — admit 2010 will to probate and award fees | Verone: jury invalidated 2012 will; court must probate 2010 will and award attorney fees under statutes | Schulz/Degel: only 2012 will was litigated; probate of 2010 requires separate hearing; statute bars fees because Verone contested earlier will | Reversed in part — court erred in refusing to admit 2010 will and validate 2010 trust; remanded with instruction to probate 2010 will and to determine attorney fees owed to Verone. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of McMurchie, 321 Mont. 21, 89 P.3d 18 (Mont. 2004) (appointment and role of personal representative in will contests)
- Beehler v. E. Radiological Assocs., P.C., 367 Mont. 21, 289 P.3d 131 (Mont. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- D.R. Four Beat Alliance, LLC v. Sierra Prod. Co., 352 Mont. 435, 218 P.3d 827 (Mont. 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of civil jury verdict)
- Murray v. Whitcraft, 367 Mont. 364, 291 P.3d 587 (Mont. 2012) (viewing evidence in favor of prevailing party)
- Campbell v. Canty, 291 Mont. 398, 969 P.2d 268 (Mont. 1998) (credibility is jury’s province)
- In re Estate of Mead, 376 Mont. 386, 336 P.3d 362 (Mont. 2014) (need for specific acts to prove undue influence; scope of verbal-act doctrine)
- In re Estate of Harmon, 360 Mont. 150, 253 P.3d 821 (Mont. 2011) (limitations on admitting testator’s out‑of‑court statements about testamentary intent)
- In re Estate of Harms, 335 Mont. 66, 149 P.3d 557 (Mont. 2006) (opportunity to influence must be correlated with acts to prove undue influence)
- In re Estate of Lightfield, 351 Mont. 426, 213 P.3d 468 (Mont. 2009) (undue influence may be proved by circumstantial evidence)
- Stoican v. Wagner (In re Estate of Lawlor), 378 Mont. 281, 343 P.3d 577 (Mont. 2015) (standing of interested persons to contest wills)
- S & P Brake Supply, Inc. v. STEMCO LP, 385 Mont. 488, 385 P.3d 567 (Mont. 2016) (trial court discretion to exclude evidence that would confuse jury)
- Reese v. Stanton, 381 Mont. 241, 358 P.3d 208 (Mont. 2015) (reversible error requires effect on a substantial right)
- Mlekush v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 381 Mont. 292, 358 P.3d 913 (Mont. 2015) (review of legal authority for attorney fee awards)