Shaka v. Shaka, 80-066
| Decision Date | 03 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-066,80-066 |
| Citation | 120 N.H. 780,424 A.2d 802 |
| Parties | Napoleon SHAKA et al v. James A. SHAKA, Executor, Estate of Zella Shaka. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Craig, Wenners, Craig & McDowell, Manchester (Joseph F. McDowell, Manchester, orally), for Napoleon Shaka.
Burns, Bryant, Hinchey, Cox & Shea, Dover (James H. Schulte, Dover, orally), for Joan Aliapoulias.
Brown & Nixon, Manchester (Frank E. Kenison, Manchester, orally), for defendant.
The question we decide in this equity proceeding is whether the trial judge erred in not setting aside the jury's finding that the testator and her deceased husband had made an oral agreement which bound her to leave her estate to his three children in equal shares. Because the evidence supports the verdict, we affirm.
Athan Shaka was born in Greece in 1876. He came to this country in 1900 but returned to Greece a few years later and married Vasiliky, by whom he had a daughter, Ora, while still living in Greece. The family later moved to this country where Athan's first son, Napoleon, was born. Vasiliky died in 1918.
In 1921, Athan and Zella Shaka were married. They had a son, James, in 1926.
Athan opened a cobbler shop in Manchester, and the business grew into a profitable shoe business. It was a family business to which all the members of the family devoted all their spare time. Over the years, a sizable estate was created which now exceeds $250,000.
In 1945, Athan and Zella executed, wills, each leaving their entire estate to the other except that Athan left one dollar to each of the three children and Zella created a fund to be held in trust by Athan which was to be used for James' education if it had not been completed at the time of Zella's death. Athan died in 1947. There was evidence that Napoleon and Ora were concerned about the terms of their father's will because they had been told that his estate would be divided equally, that they did not contest the will because they were told by Zella that she had made an agreement with Athan to leave her estate to the three children equally, and that James had told them that no matter what happened, he would see that the property was divided equally.
Zella executed another will in 1965 and a third in 1973. After Zella's death in 1975, her 1973 will was admitted into probate and proved in common form. Her estate consisted of what she had received under Athan's will. Under her will Napoleon was given $10,000, Joan Aliapoulias, the only child of Ora, who had died in 1973, was given $2,000, a niece was left $1,000, and the entire residue was left to James.
The plaintiffs brought a bill in equity claiming that Athan and Zella had contracted to execute irrevocable mutual wills and that this contract included an agreement that the survivor would leave the entire estate to be divided equally among the three children. Wyman, J., submitted to a jury the question whether Athan and Zella had entered "into an oral agreement that each of them would execute irrevocable wills leaving their property to one another and then to Athan's children in three equal shares." The jury answered in the affirmative. The defendant moved to set aside the verdict, but the court declined to do so and entered a decree dividing the estate equally: one-third to Napoleon, one-third to Joan as the sole heir of Ora, and one-third to James. The court further decreed that the executor was to hold the estate's assets in constructive trust for the three children and was to distribute these assets in accordance with the decree. The defendant appealed.
The sole issue before us is whether the jury's finding is supported by the evidence. Our task is to determine whether a reasonable person could reach the same conclusion as the jury and the court on the basis of the evidence before them....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Exxon Mobil Corp., s. 2013–0591
...whether a reasonable person could reach the same conclusion as the jury on the basis of the evidence before it. See Shaka v. Shaka, 120 N.H. 780, 782, 424 A.2d 802 (1980). We review sufficiency of the evidence 126 A.3d 287 claims as a matter of law. Tosta v. Bullis, 156 N.H. 763, 767, 943 A......
-
Duggan v. Keto, 86-352.
...196 Cal.Rptr. 727, 729-730 (1983); Lawrence v. Ashba, 115 Ind.App. 485, 490-92, 59 N.Ed.2d 568, 570-571 (1945); Shaka v. Shaka, 120 N.H. 780, 782-83, 424 A.2d 802, 803-804 (1980); Shook v. Bell, 599 P.2d 1320, 1324-1325 (Wyo. Although the Uniform Probate Code has not been adopted in the Dis......
-
In re McHugo
...was such a contract, but did not disturb the admission to probate of a later will that was made in breach of the contract. 120 N.H. 780, 424 A.2d 802, 803 (1980). In Arizona, where testator's 1997 will was executed, courts have recognized that " ‘a joint, mutual or reciprocal will may be re......
-
State v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2013-0591
...whether a reasonable person could reach the same conclusion as the jury on the basis of the evidence before it. See Shaka v. Shaka, 120 N.H. 780, 782 (1980). We review sufficiency of the evidence claims as a matter of law. Tosta v. Bullis, 156 N.H. 763, 767 (2008). The test of due care is w......