Boynton v. Simmons (In re Simmons' Estate)

• Decision Date: 22 June 1923
• Docket Number: No. 23367.,23367.
• Citation: 156 Minn. 144,194 N.W. 330
• Parties: In re SIMMONS' ESTATE. BOYNTON v. SIMMONS et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

156 Minn. 144

194 N.W. 330

In re SIMMONS' ESTATE.

BOYNTON

v.SIMMONS et al.

No. 23367.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 22, 1923.

Appeal from District Court, Dakota County; Willard L. Converse, Judge.

In the matter of the estate of Lucy D. Simmons, deceased. Suit by Frances L. Boynton against Frank A. Simmons and others. Judgment for defendants, and, from an order denying a motion for new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

The evidence sustains the finding of the jury that a will made by the testatrix in 1911 was destroyed in 1916 through the undue influence of the appellant, the proponent of a later will, made in 1916, and that the 1916 will, made at the time of the destruction of the 1911 will, was induced by the undue influence of such proponent.

The court erred in charging the jury that where one who receives a gift ‘occupies a position of trust and confidence towards the one who makes the gift, that fact will warrant an inference or a presumption that such gift or such will was induced by undue influence.’

The proponent of the second will, who was named as executrix, and was a beneficiary, and who actively engaged in sustaining it and opposing the 1911 will, in which she was also named executrix and was a beneficiary, was subject to cross-examination under the statute, Gen. St. 1913, § 8377, as an adverse party. Moore, Oppenheimer, Peterson & Dickson, of St. Paul, for appellant.

C. S. Lowell, of Hastings, and Shaw, Safford, Ray & Shaw, of Minneapolis, for respondents.

DIBELL, J.

Lucy D. Simmons made two wills, one in February, 1911, the other in May, 1916. The first will was destroyed in May, 1916, when the second one was made. The 1916 will contained no revoking clause. The probate court admitted the 1916 will to probate. On appeal to the district court these two questions were submitted to the jury:

1. Was the will of Lucy D. Simmons, which was executed in February, 1911, and which was destroyed in May, 1916, so destroyed by reason of undue influence exerted by Frances L. Boynton?

2. Was the second will of Lucy D. Simmons, which was executed in May, 1916, executed as the result of undue influence exerted over the said Lucy D. Simmons by Frances L. Boynton?

Both questions were answered in the affirmative. The court made findings and established the 1911 will. Miss Boynton appeals from the order denying her motion for a new trial.

The questions of importance are these:

(1) Does the evidence sustain the findings of the jury upon the question of undue influence?

(2) Did the court err in charging the jury that the position of trust and confidence occupied by Miss Boynton warranted an inference or presumption of undue influence?

(3) Did the court err in permitting Miss Boynton to be called for cross-examination under the statute?

[1] 1. Mrs. Simmons was mentally afflicted for many years. She was at different hospitals. In May, 1911, she was committed to the Rochester State Hospital. She was paroled in 1912 and discharged in 1913. She was restored to competency by the probate court in 1915. She was in the Latto Hospital in Hastings several times after her discharge from Rochester. She returned to Rochester in 1918, and died there on March 25, 1921, at the age of 77. Miss Boynton was appointed her guardian on March 29, 1911, and continued as such until her restoration to competency on May 25, 1915. She was a friend of the Simmons family. Under the guardianship she had charge of Mrs. Simmons' business matters. After her restoration to capacity she had a power of attorney to attend to her affairs. She continued to look after her affairs until her death. She did not render an account as guardian. The first will of Mrs. Simmons remembered the children of her deceased husband by a prior marriage, from whom the estate largely came, and gave Miss Boynton $500. The later will remembered such children less generously, omitted one altogether, gave Miss Boynton some real estate in Hastings, and made her residuary devisee. She was named executrix in both wills. The circumstances surrounding the destruction of the 1911 will are confused. There is a marked discrepancy, unfavorable to Miss Boynton, between the testimony given in the probate court and that given in the district court. Mrs. Simmons was a frail, sick woman. Miss Boynton was a successful business woman. There was a relation between them of trust and confidence. To some extent at least Miss Boynton was concerned with the execution of the 1916 will. She did not draw it. We make no effort to detail all the pertinent facts tending to show the presence or absence of undue influence. The evidence justified the jury in their answers to the two questions. Their findings are well sustained.

[2] 2. The court charged the jury as follows:

‘It is also the law, gentlemen, that where a party who receives a gift-either by will or otherwise-occupies a position of trust and confidence towards the one who makes the gift, that fact will warrant an inference or a presumption that such gift or such will was induced by undue influence. During all of the times herein, Miss Frances L. Boynton occupied a position of trust and confidence with reference to Lucy D. Simmons, and in your consideration of this case, you may take that fact into consideration and give to it such force and effect as in your judgment and upon all the evidence in the case, you deem it entitled to.’

The part of the charge which gives trouble is that which states that if one receiving a gift ‘occupies a position of trust and confidence towards the one who makes the gift, that fact will warrant an inference or a presumption that such gift or such will was induced by undue influence.’ If this is the rule, one contesting a will upon the ground of undue influence makes a case upon proof that the beneficiary occupied a position of trust and confidence towards the testator. With that proof he may go to the jury and take a favorable verdict. True, adverse parties may oppose the case thus made; but unopposed, the existence of the relation, under the rule, justifies a jury in making a finding of undue influence; and though opposed the rule operates at the trial and on review in favor of a finding for the contestant.

The court did not say that the existence of a confidential relation raised a legal presumption of undue influence; that is, that the law presumed undue influence from the confidential relation. Manifestly such a statement would be error. But no more does a confidential relation alone and of itself, unsupported by other probative facts, justify an inference or presumption, considered as one of fact, that the making of a will is the result of undue influence. A gift by will or a gift inter vivos may be the natural result of a confidential relation. Between parent and child and in other family relationships it is expected; it is the natural thing. A gift to a confidential employé or adviser is not necessarily suggestive of influence unduly exercised; indeed, in such a relationship a gift, under given circumstances, may be natural, when, if...