Matter of Estate of Flaherty

courts, reviewing too, those So our trial, for a new are damages motions deciding wheth- devices

left their own is “excessive” or award

er not an prej- passion and

degree demonstrates faced with Similarly, this court is

udice. simply There are no problems.

the same guide a objective which standards punitive damages, or a

its assessment assessment, review that trial court in its appellate review. in its $200,000 award of not the

Whether or excessive, in this

punitive damages case

therefore, eye of the behold- truly relationship direct causal

er. There is a subjectivity and rank

between such guidance

complete lack of standards dam-

against punitive an award of majority I

ages may believe a be tested. Supreme Court would

the United States standards is

hold that the absence contrary

fundamentally unfair and process clause of the United States

due would, therefore, I reverse constitution. sug- damages and punitive

the award of Legislature provide

gest act punitive govern the amount of

standards to action, damages, legislative or absent California, e.g., as has adopt,

this court Comora, 1244, Cal.App.3d

Radell v. (1989), very Cal.Rptr. at the

least, proportionality. rule of some

In the of John J. Matter Estate FLAHERTY, Deceased. FLAHERTY, Jr., Plaintiff Appellee, FELDNER, Representa

Norine Personal Flaherty, Estate of John

tive Deceased, Appellant. Defendant No. 880358.

Civ.

Supreme Court North Dakota.

Sept.

761 Bessie several letters J. wrote to John only response request His was a for blood baby tests when the was about six months old. The showed that and tests John J. type positive Bessie had blood and H., baby, type their had positive. John time, By medical of that standards these types blood evidenced that John J. could father of been the John H. 1939, annulment. John J. sued for an sought support. Eventually, Bessie child Minot, Eaton, Ward, Van de Streek & for 1941, gave in Bessie agreed and plaintiff appellee, argued and Michael their marriage. annulment of Ward, Minot. Mandan, grew up, H. (argued), L. Schnell When John he

Richard unsuccessful- ly tried to appellant. and communicate with John J. defendant John H., wife, and children would sometimes McGee, Wheeler, Hankla, Ltd., Backes & sister, Violet, visit John nursing J.’s in a Minot, appellant, for defendant and Although home. other relatives of John J. Backes, W. Orlin Minot. visits, encouraged these disturbed Also, meetings, John J. at several chance MESCHKE, Justice. John J. ranted to John H.’s wife and to his the principal Norine benefi- daughter he presence felt their brother, ciary of will of her John J. implied that he was father of John H. Flaherty, appealed deceased. She began telling people John J. that he could judgment declaring verdict and possibly John H.’s father. Over his will was invalid of an insane years, John J. claimed that he had never We affirm. delusion. Bessie, married that blood tests FACTS proved father, not the he was he had used a handkerchief white as a contra- Flaherty and Bessie Rock met at lifetime, ceptive. In his John J. wrote four a dance the summer when he of 1937 wills, making sister, each different No- she was 32 and was 18. Bessie testified Feldner, beneficiary nearly rine half J. was that John her first date and her first Also, his estate. each of these ex- wills partner. pregnant. sexual Bessie became pressly disinherited John H. John J. and Bessie married and moved in parents, Martin with his 1986, When J. died in John H. con 21, Flaherty, March 1938. John H. son of wills, claiming they tested the were invalid Bessie, April John J. and was born on had an insane because John J. delusion that John H. not his son. The trial court petition, believing contest dismissed the slept in baby After Bessie and the annulment “estab room, slept Emma’s John J.’s but John J. lished that was not the son slept H.] Martin couch. [John room while on the appealed. re We arrangement [John J.].” insisted on this be- Emma versed, ruling party that John H. was not a did cause she not want Bessie and J. to the 1941 annulment and “his interests together. sleeping Emma insisted also Flaherty represented were not therein.” help play baby J. not with the nor (N.D. 419 N.W.2d him. care for 1988). did not H.’s judicata Res bar John old, When was three months rights. baby took to her Bessie and the remand, home, parents’ saying get psychiatric At the trial on that he would expert about testified that John them in a week. John J. never re- for John psychotic from a “induced suffering turned for Bessie and John H. by the contestant that delusion,” proof further paranoid “shared disorder” or insanity where a dominant no foundation fact or form of double the delusion has develops an insane delusion show that the probability in order to This partner. it on to a submissive passes imagi- wholly product of the delusion J. was dominated expert that John testified nation. mother, Emma, developed that she his by if “Therefore, that you are instructed H. him the delusion John gave and evidence, slight although any there is son, that, after his moth- and not his was inconclusive, may have contributed her, death, loyalty to out of er’s regarding Flaherty’s beliefs to John reject his son. to continued Flaherty, his reasons for H. Jr. and expert, testifying for psychiatric Another Will, omitting him from his the testator’s Feldner, par- idea of a “shared rejected the question a delusion. The belief is not because the disorder was anoid delusion” tes- Flaherty, Jr. is the whether not all of its traits did so rare and because regards son is not an issue with tator’s in John J.’s relation- clearly present seem determining whether the testator suf- Emma, expert ship his mother. This delusion, because fered from an insane rumors suggested that the annulment and H. regardless of whether or not John may J. some basis for his have son, Flaherty, actually Jr. was his belief.1 any issue is whether or there was decided John was may have contributed to evidence which an insane and that John J. had J.’s son omitting for him the testator’s belief not. The trial court that he was from the Will. declaring that all four entered a “Furthermore, you are instructed that invalid and that John was wills were heir. proving son and sole that the testator suf- John J.’s addition delusion, it is not fered from insane claimed that the appealed. She prove enough that the contestant mistakenly instructed the of such delu- the testator was a victim an insane delusion and about about sion, prove the contestant must also trial court sanity, evidence, excluding allowing product and erred the Will itself was a of that that there was insufficient evidence of delusion and that the testator divides delusion shared between John J. an insane in a mother. delusion, done. he would not have “Therefore, to this Will on the invalidate DELUSION INSANE product basis that it was a of an insane verbatim, give, The trial court did not delusion, prove the contestant all of lengthy requested Feldner: following facts: presumption that a testator “There is a Flaherty “1. That John J. suffered the execution of sane at the time of was had no foundation from a delusion that contesting proof one is his will. Where probability, wholly fact or that the testator on the basis of a will imagination; product of delusion, suffering from an insane Flaherty That suffered “2. sufficient to introduce evidence this delusion at the time he the testator was which tends Will; delusion, signed the there must possessed of such deposition Only any before sketchy. to recall rumors at her 1. Evidence of rumors sister, having who would receive danced with the J.’s Norine trial. Bessie admitted will, J.'s under the testi- public half of John at dances with mail carrier and others a rumor. She said that a friend fied about having knowledge, but sex with John J.’s denied vague once told him in a her late husband’s non-party anyone than John J. A witness other Bessie, mail "John reference to the carrier and family time could not at that who knew step had better kinda watch his cause she was recall rumors. get out to him.” But Feldner had been unable though not have drafted “If there was even “3. That he would manner, except slight or inconclusive which his Will contributed to the belief held one delusion.” delusion, claimed to be afflicted with the Instead, the trial court instructed on the then his cannot said to an insane as follows: nature of (Feldner’s emphasis). insanity upon a “An insane delusion is Second, complained that trial court An ren- single subject. insane delusion instruct, requested, did not she that a incapable ders the afflicted “wholly belief must be reasoning upon particular subject. Third, imagination” to a delusion. Feld- that to true He assumes to believe complained ner that the trial court misstat- in which has no reasonable foundation by instructing ed the law that “an insane per-A fact on which to base his belief. may though exist even there was persistently believing supposed son facts person some evidence from which the af- against which have no real existence all might flicted have formed his belief of probability, conducting evidence and Fourth, judgment.” complained Feldner upon assumption of their ex- himself improperly that the trial court instructed istence, is so far as such facts are con- operative that a decedent must base his cerned, under an insane delusion. Recap- beliefs on “reasonable” evidence. may “An insane delusion exist even ping, arguments Feldner’s all addressed though there was some evidence from the definition of an insane delusion which might which the afflicted have testamentary can capacity affect and de- judgment. formed his belief of It is a stroy ability to make a valid will. is not based belief which reasonable responded that the elaborate in- or at least without evi- requested by struction Feldner would have dence from a sane man could which draw testamentary capacity distorted the law on the conclusion which form the delusion.” equivalent and would have been to a direct- The trial court also instructed on the upholding ed verdict the wills. John H. proof burden of for an insane delusion: insisted the trial that court’s instruction “The Will contestant has burden of was a more accurate statement of the law establishing by greater weight of evi- any error in the trial and that or omission an dence that the testator suffered under court’s instruction was harmless. insane delusion. Whether testator laboring under an insane delusion which We review claims of error materially generally affects the will respect language, instructions fact, question of and to defeat a will on style court’s formula form and of the trial “ ground that the testator lacked testa- tions, long they fully fairly ‘so mentary capacity because of an insane principles inform the of the rules and delusion, it not sufficient to establish plain, applicable of law to the case and are the testator was the victim of such a easily by the simple, and understood ” delusion, go but the evidence must fur- Laskowski, 274 jury.’ v. N.W.2d Wasem ther and establish that the will itself was 219, (N.D.1979). product of that delusion and that the “There is no need for us to consider the testator devised his if, on requested instructions ... based delusion, he would adduced, the instructions the evidence not have done.” together, correct- given, when considered applicable ly jury as to the law Relying language prior decisions advise the court, circumstances there to the case. Under such by this though no error even the re- errors in the trial court’s there was were instructions instructions, re- First, were quested delusion. which about fused, statements of complained that the trial in- were correct court did not struct, requested, as she law. that: omitted].” [Citations the rule 745, to formulate 750 Grace “endeavor[ed] 209 N.W.2d Privratsky, Munro v. prove present to must be Saturday proof v. (N.D.1973). also Jore See delusion,” 889, 894 of an insane Club, Inc., existence 227 N.W.2d actual

Night had to properly of the will (“A may ruling opponents (N.D.1975) trial court false; are cov in fact ... which tendered instructions the belief “was refuse fact, its own mo founded given on by instructions ered had no basis [was] Finken, tion.”); 239 N.W.2d v. had no real Haider ... probability; in reason (N.D.1976) (“[Instructions existence, purely but [was] entirety. If the in their considered must be Id., at imagination.” outline the issues is to effect of the whole evidence, even there were “[I]f correctly, an isolated fairly and in the case inconclusive, though slight or therein will contained improper statement held one contributed to error.”); prejudicial Sen considered not be to be afflicted with claimed Grad, 246 N.W.2d delbach said to be then his belief cannot be (“That unnecessary (N.D.1976) language is concise, light clear that some irrational opinion ruled Id. Laskowski, at supra, given.”); v. Wasem decedent, sleeping his by the conduct (“Even is insuffi an instruction 223 when weeks, on, staying in for two clothes bed alone, standing we cient or erroneous accompanied the eating, which and not cured if apparent error consider would belief, in- prove did not irrational claimed fairly advise the as a whole the instructions that no sanity. Grace concluded Justice pertains to jury as to the law which proven. joining Without delusion was issues.”); Skogley, McGarry v. essential Grace, by Chief the extensive dicta Justice (“Even (N.D.1979) 325-26 275 N.W.2d briefly that concurred Justice Christianson not have com though perhaps would findings of the trial the evidence and language used in the posed an instruction court sustained the will. by not a measure by judge, that is of in determine the correctness which we later, half-century Nearly King don Bratcher, structions.”); 307 Gajewski v. (N.D.1968), 158 N.W.2d 863 Sybrant, v. (N.D.1981)(“If an instruc 832 N.W.2d judg- verdict and this court reversed law, adequately it tion covers lack of ment held a will invalid for requested instruc give refuse to error to testamentary capacity arising from an in- nothing objec though there was tion even decedent’s divorced wife sane delusion that instruction.”). requested tionable him and that he had unfaithful to been adequacy accordingly evaluate We daughter. This court not the father of by court in the trial the instructions instructions, directing that ruled this case. pre- chastity legitimacy were both times, court has decided how Four sumed, improperly shifted the burden of We delusion affect will. an insane proponents of the will. In proof to the bearing on these those decisions summarize effect, necessary the instructions made instructions. of the will to proponents unfaithful and decedent’s former wife was Gerwien, N.W. 101 171 In Edwardson therefore, illegit- daughter probate of (N.D.1919), approved this court expression repeated the imate. The court by a claim that it was affected a will over Gerwien, supra, in Edwardson v. claimants delusion. The an insane that a “delusion must show will contestant falsely that cer- the decedent believed probability, in fact or in has no foundation him and trying to starve tain relatives were wholly that the delusion is in order to show from him. Justice get property away imagination.” 158 product of Grace, of this writing for four members N.W.2d, ruled that The court also at 866. court, demon- assumed that the evidence an affair be- believed, of rumors about but that the decedent so strated and a named former wife tween decedent’s the evidence nevertheless concluded “in- and relevant was admissible individual an insane delusion. Justice fell short of belief, just than a mere a false presence of such rumors could as the sofar giv- eccentricity, per- a clash between two have affected the decedent’s belief Id., temperament person- or at 868. sons different en substance thereto.” religious prejudice racial ality, or a Rask, 214 N.W.2d 525 In Re Estate of origin. ancestral It is a that is (N.D.1974), a trial court decree affirmed of a sick or diseased mind the dece- denying probate of a will because to without evidence or and that is held suffering delu- dent was rational basis.” beneficiary the sole was his sion Wills, 12.29,p. Page Bowe-Parker: on § fact, daughter. decedent had never (1960). married, children, had no and was not beneficiary. This the father of the sole Many struggled adequate- courts court concluded that the evidence estab- ly express defining an insane this idea lished that “there was no factual basis” for Id., jury. at 12.30. delusion to instruct a § the decedent’s belief. expressions concept have Our own of this case-by-case experi- progressed with our Koch, Matter Estate 259 N.W.2d Generally, expressions ence. the better (N.D.1977),also affirmed a trial court’s an insane delusion as a have defined denying probate of a will. The trial decree in facts that no rational would be- produc- that the will was court determined lieve, as not founded and as delusion that his ed decedent’s insane not removable evidence. 1 Bowe- See against prior him. children were As Wills, Page Parker: 12.30-12.34. §§ cases, this court viewed the matter as a Essentially, that is what the trial court said question fact and concluded that evi- in this case. supported dence the determination of agreed This court with the trial court. whole, Taken as a the trial court’s trial court that conduct of decedent’s chil- instructions to the were accurate and dren, testifying against him in truthfully complete. just any It evidence or proceeding and in his di- a mental health some evidence which makes a belief ration mother, from their was not a rational vorce al, delusionary. An rather than insane de factual basis for the decedent’s belief. is a in “facts which have no lusion belief analysis This court used an from similar against all real existence evidence “ ‘[tjhere is no decisions other states probability” as the trial court instructed. a sane mind could evidence from which “product A of the ” conclusion’ which the decedent draw the requested, imagination,” as Feldner but N.W.2d, insanely at 662. fairly believed. that ele think the trial court stated instructing a delusion must be ment in sum, sought has to distin- this court from which a belief “without produc- guish between mistaken beliefs not ” sane man could draw the conclusion.... illness, simply ed mental error to instruct Nor do we think it was incomplete are on evidence which is based may exist even that an insane delusion misleading, and those irrational false evidence from though there was some produced by a mental illness. beliefs might have formed his the decedent life, time or anoth- “Everyone at some belief, trial court clarified that it since the beliefs, er, false and fre- holds some have no of facts “which must be delusions, quently such false beliefs or are “not based real existence” and which called, they may be are the basis as per that a sane upon reasonable evidence” action; attachment to our but the mental son would believe. that is rational and will the belief is one correct, are it is If instructions superior is sus- give way to evidence and give delusions, an additional not error to refuse ceptible of correction. Such requested requested, even if the delusions, instruction being not de- do is also correct. Ga- instruction testamentary capacity in- additional stroy or render Bratcher, supra. We conclude jewski upon valid a will based such delusions. whole, court’s the trial taken as a therefore, An insane is more declining instruct that there was fairly fully to further case in this instructions sanity. The burden of applica- principles informed the doubly emphasized. proof need not be these facts. ble to requested an instruction Feldner also property in right to will has a OF SANITY PRESUMPTION person chooses so manner which following requested the instruc- The long policy not violated. public as tion: requested said: is contested on “Where a Will “Any competent adult individual the testator did not have grounds that testamentary disposition make a written capacity mental to make a sufficient take effect of his or her Will, presumed Testator is to have It the testator’s his or her death. is testamentary to have had been sane and may dispose right. The testator of this signed. capacity at the time Will regard he without as wishes presumption substitutes evi- “The prospective the desires of beneficiaries or testamentary existence of dence of the juries or courts. If the Will views you finding capacity governs tes- disregards family ties or is unwise or is tamentary capacity, you unless find from reasons, is, unjust, or for other such as testamentary ca- credible evidence approve, the court does not this does not exist, pacity does not in which event the invalid, long signify that it is as as presumption is rebutted and ceases to against public policy. It is not Will not party against pre- operate. whom against public policy to disinherit a son. sumption is directed has the burden of disposition such a “One who makes proving pre- the nonexistence of the ‘testator’, called the and the document probable more its sumed fact is than the testator executes is called a ‘Will’.” existence.” give The trial court did not the instruction that it was error for the but, out, requested, pointed as John trial court to refuse to so instruct that one effectively given. its substance was presumed sane. who makes a will trial court instructed that the evidence presumption responded was that “the testator divides establish proof already a function of the burden of on the contestant as the trial court instruct- he would not have done.” Therefore, argued, under ed. John the find, This if instruction allowed the Evidence, North Dakota Rules of no fur- inclined, right it had so in his called for. ther instruction was mind John J. would have disinherited John says: Part of 30.1-15-07 NDCC EL, even if John H. were his son. “Contestants of a will have the burden of We conclude that there were no substan- establishing testamentary lack of intent tial errors in the trial court’s instructions to capacity, . ...” jury. says: NDREv party against “A whom a EVIDENTIARY RULINGS proving directed has the burden argued Feldner that it was error to presumed the nonexistence of the fact is allow her to be cross-examined about the probable than its existence.” more surviving joint fact that she was the tenant The trial court instructed: with John J. some bank accounts and contestant has the “The Will burden deposit. question certificates of was establishing by greater weight of evi- objection asked and answered before was dence that the testator suffered under an Then, objection made. an was sustained insane delusion.” questions subject no further on this the trial court instructed that John were asked. Since Since there was no motion to will, instruction, H., person contesting request as the had strike or for a curative proof, burden of there was no error in we find no of discretion in the trial abuse ruling denying argued court’s a mistrial for this Feldner that there was insufficient singular inquiry. irrelevant Emma believed John H. was son, insane, not John J.’s that Emma was argued Feldner that the trial court erro- or that Emma dominated addi- neously permitted psychiatric John H.’s ex- tion, pointed Feldner out that John H.’s pert testify rejection J.’s John psychiatric expert had never met either devastating H. had effect on John J., expound- Emma or John so that he was responded H.’s life. John H. that Feldner’s ing on their mental conditions without suf- opened counsel the door to this line of ficient foundation fact. by cross-examining examination about the Pointing testimony that John J. was subject of rejecting his son all of assertive who made his own deci- his life. We see no abuse of discretion. managed life, sions and his own argued Finally, Feldner that it was argued that the evidence demonstrated permit evidentiary error to not use of that Emma did not dominate John J. Cou- judgment annulling marriage of pled with a lack of evidence about Flaherty Bessie Rock. John H. mental part illness on the of either Emma argued probative that it’s value was out J., or John that the usual weighed by danger prejudice, of unfair predicates for the rare psychotic induced so that there no was abuse discretion present. Moreover, disorder were not its exclusion. since Emma years died over 10 before John will, dissipation J.’s last the usual of this petition

The annulment verified rare disorder after termination of the rela- J. was received in evidence. So was the tionship present. was not stipulation signed by both John J. and Bes- attorney sie. letter from Bessie’s matter, legal As a only had to attorney completing for John J. about the prove an insane part delusion on the stipulation was also in evidence. Since we J., wills, the one who made the not on already had ruled judgment part his mother. To the judicata, Flaherty not res su- extent that John J.’s mental condition was pra, relevancy itself affected relationship with his moth- marginal on the issue of an insane er, we think there was sufficient evidence delusion. We see no abuse of discretion in about fairly permit Emma’s dominance to admitting it into evidence before the expert testimony subject. on the jury. According Bessie, to testimony by Emma strange

insisted on sleeping arrangements SUFFICIENCY THE OF EVIDENCE Flaherty baby home after the longer slept born. John noJ. with his wife that John H. failed but shared a bed with his age mother. At specific elements of the insane complied. upon, delusion psychotic relied an “induced paranoid disorder” or “shared evidence, There through was Bessie’s Feldner directed our attention to the out testimony, that it was Emma who first line given by of this disorder John H.’s suggested baby that the was not John J.’s. psychiatric expert: with, begin To John J. did not share this Bessie; suspicion. Emma suffered from the insane delu- He married he named boy; played sion that John H. was not son his and he with him. John J.’s Emma passed H.; play insisted that John J. not even and this delusion on to John with the baby, distorting a father’s natural behav- extremely 2. Emma was dominant ior. relationship her with the submissive J.; and This sufficient evidence was to infer that psychotic 3. This induced disorder willing disagree not John J. was with usually dissipates beliefs, accepted when the relation- her and was domi- ship person predicate between the dominant nated This and her. was sufficient person expert opinion. says the submissive an ends. NDREv 703 Bes- having intercourse with ceptive an while or data ... facts “[t]he H. was not If he believed that John sie. opinion an or inference expert bases son he used the handkerchief to his because perceived by or made known those contraceptive, a is not sufficient as hearing.” the him at or before from the to remove his belief evidence a of an delusion? Such belief realm insane CONCLUSION the surely ignorance may, born and as of there sufficient We conclude that instructed, “have no reasonable verdict, jury’s that there evidence it an in fact.” But would not be foundation allowing excluding no error in just rea- It is for such a insane delusion. jury the satisfacto- and that interjection the of reasonable- son that a a rily instructed. Because Feldner had fair the of insane ness standard into definition trial, we affirm. fraught danger. with so Secondly, I should believe C.J., LEVINE, J., ERICKSTAD, a of presumption instructed that there is concur. sanity That is part on the of the testator. WALLE, Justice, dissenting. VANDE clearly E.g., King in this law State. of I take with insertion (N.D. issue Sybrant, don v. 158 N.W.2d 863 reasonableness in the trial 1968). minds, standard of Although, in legal our we on A court’s instruction insane delusion. might presumption deduce that a unreasonably minds person may, in the of sanity testator’s exists when the trial court people, property leave her or his in a other has has instructed that will contestant would suf- establishing by greater manner that others not without the burden of fering danger, weight an insane delusion. The of of testator the evidence that course, delusion, a testator’s I am not future suffered under an disposition lay people as his or her neces orders convinced of will sarily clearly it property may be invalidated so infer. Because is so disposed not the testator law of this that a does does believe State exist, “reasonably.” not here- I to a property We have believe Feldner was entitled specific or tofore held that an instruction to that effect. unreasonable evidence is belief based unreasonable I Finally, agree majority do not equivalent of an insane delusion.1 an instruction insignificant. Presum- establish that “the testator divides The issue insanity ably there difference for that is a between might ignorance. A he in 1937 would have done” is equivalent competent an have believed that handkerchief was contraceptive. may dispose adequate From what adults their ignorance regard wish particularly told about the without the desires are or today concerning prospective these mat- the views of young people beneficiaries ters, might today. person juries majority true even be courts. concludes a handkerchief was an that the instruction would allow the believed that who surely right find contraceptive jury hold to that in his mind John J. adequate would belief, we nec- have if H. but would would disinherited an unreasonable agree; his I essarily it was an insane delusion? were son. do not to the con- conclude I trary, permits jury record that it to con- is evidence the believe Yet there clude, law, contra- as a matter if did a handkerchief as a almost use confusing majority opinion instruction is at best insofar as it The concludes 1. reads: fairly that an insane delusion must court stated "product imagination" when it be the upon "It is a which is not belief based reason- evidence, any a delusion must instructed that able or at least be without a sane man evidence from which man "without from which a sane could draw the con- [Emphasis is But that not clusion which form the could draw the conclusion ..." supplied.] portion of the and that the whole instruction son, The apparently trial court was concerned H. were John J.’s would parties to permitted that both advocate my disinherit him. con- not As observed positions undue their without direction curring opinion Flaherty clearly from the trial But our law court. (N.D.1988) (VandeWalle, N.W.2d “edge” gives the testator the and the trial result), J., concurring par- there are accordingly. should I instruct am acknowledge readily who their off- ents jury anxious to set not aside verdict offspring. those spring but who disinherit of an because erroneous instruction.2 Ju- jury left to infer should not be appear often arrive at rors what to be might instruction that it find that if in notwithstanding correct verdicts the in- right mind John J. have disinher- would However, I believe structions. we should H., if ited John even John were his son. judgment reverse the in this instance. If in- Feldner was entitled to an affirmative not, do I fear the instructions will be- competent right as to the testa- struction come model for future cases. Too of- dispose property they to tors of their as barely passes appel- an instruction that ten Furthermore, desire. the instruction scrutiny late is held out as the model for is, believe, confusing. permitted I It also appropriate that reason when a more in- mentally compe- preferable. to conclude struction would be persons their tent would leave to I judgment would reverse the and re- their children and that John J. did appropri- mand for a new trial at which leave his John H. he to given. ate instructions could be incompetent. If testators are to have their be assured estates will distributed GIERKE, J., concurs. dictated, legally right

as to compromised by so should in-

do not be room

structions leave the to prop- its to

substitute as how

erty should be for that of the distributed

testators. otherwise, My primary expert concern is with instructions. There no However, if, expert as John witness equates H.’s testi- dominance married son of a fied, necessary it was for Emma to have suf- Although with an insane delusion. mother passed from an fered insane delusion legal majority states that matter John H. son, J., her there is scant evidence in the only delusion on the had to an insane that Emma unless the record so suffered J., disingenuous part of John when the that is attempts conclude who mother expert witness relies for that between her his wife so come son and suffers. theory begins proof espouses of Emma’s dom- There obvious evidence part delusion on of Emma which she explanation but little for John J.'s contin- inance passes on to her son. parental after ued denial of his status her death.

Case Details

Case Name: Matter of Estate of Flaherty

Court Name: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date Published: Sep 26, 1989

Citation: 446 N.W.2d 760

Docket Number: Civ. 880358

Court Abbreviation: N.D.