Breault v. Feigenholtz

Decision Date26 January 1973
Docket NumberNo. 44689,44689
Citation296 N.E.2d 3,54 Ill.2d 173
PartiesWilliam Joseph BREAULT et al., Appellants, v. Harold L. FEIGENHOLTZ, Exr., et al., Appellees.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Page 3

296 N.E.2d 3
54 Ill.2d 173
William Joseph BREAULT et al., Appellants,
Harold L. FEIGENHOLTZ, Exr., et al., Appellees.
No. 44689.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Jan. 26, 1973.
As Modified on Denial of Rehearing May 15, 1973.

[54 Ill.2d 174]

Page 5

Yowell & Yowell and Chapman & Cutler, Chicago (G. Kent Yowell and Randall Mitchell, Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.

[54 Ill.2d 175] Baker & McKenzie, Chicago (Francis D. Morrissey, Thomas F. Tobin, James A. Dunkin, and Michael P. Connelly, Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.


This case involves a contest in the circuit court of Cook County seeking to set aside the will of Oscar J. Breault, deceased, alleging that it was a product of undue influence. At the close of the petitioners' evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of respondents, and petitioners appeal to this court contending: (1) the evidence presented did not warrant a directed verdict for respondents; (2) this court should enter judgment for petitioners because undue influence was established as a matter of law; and (3) the trial court erred in the exclusion of certain evidence and in denying their requests that respondents admit certain facts in accordance with Rule 216. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 110A, par. 216.) No issue of testamentary capacity is raised.

This is a part of protracted litigation which has prevailed over many years. In

Page 6

re Estate of Breault (1963), 29 Ill.2d 165, 193 N.E.2d 824; Breault v. Feigenholtz (D.C.1965), 250 F.Supp. 551, aff'd (7th Cir. 1966), 358 F.2d 39, cert. denied (1966), 385 U.S. 824, 87 S.Ct. 52, 17 L.Ed.2d 61; In re Estate of Breault (1965), 63 Ill.App.2d 246, 211 N.E.2d 424; Breault v. Feigenholtz (7th Cir. 1967), 380 F.2d 90; People ex rel. Dahm v. Corcoran (1968), 39 Ill.2d 233, 234 N.E.2d 794; In re Estate of Breault (1969), 113 Ill.App.2d 356, 251 N.E.2d 910; Breault v. Feigenholtz (1970), 128 Ill.App.2d 1, 262 N.E.2d 819, rev'd (1973), 54 Ill.2d 185, 296 N.E.2d 1; and In re Estate of Breault (1971), 1 Ill.App.3d 899, 275 N.E.2d 292.

A short resume of events preliminary to discussion of the issues here involved is in order. Kathryn M. Breault died August 3, 1952, leaving a last will and testament which devised and bequeathed the bulk of a substantial estate to Harold L. Feigenholtz and Richard Dahm, as [54 Ill.2d 176] trustees, for the benefit of her son Oscar, during his lifetime. The assets primarily consisted of stock in the Brolite Company, Inc., a family business. Dahm, it appears, had been a long-time employee of the company; and Feigenholtz, who was retained as her attorney shortly before she executed her will, became the company president one year after her death. Under the provisions of the trust created by the will, Oscar was to receive the income with a discretionary power in the trustees to invade the corpus if and when they felt it necessary. It further provided that if after three years from the trust's inception the trustees believed Oscar was competent to handle the business, the corpus could be turned over to him. Oscar also received a general testamentary power of appointment over the assets, and if this power was not properly exercised, the estate was to be distributed among three specified charities.

Oscar married three times. Kenneth Breault, a respondent in this action, was the only issue of the first marriage that ended in divorce. On May 6, 1942, Oscar married Florence Breault. This marriage was apparently unhappy and ended in divorce in October, 1954. William Joseph and Bonnie Jo Ellen Breault, who are petitioners herein, were born of this marriage. On November 9, 1954, Oscar married the respondent, Estelle, and on November 18, 1954, he executed his last will and testament which is now in issue.

Petitioners claim that this will was a product of undue influence which Harold Feigenholtz and his nephew, Eugene Busch, exerted upon Oscar during the time he was the income beneficiary under Kathryn's trust. They also say that at the time Oscar executed his will (November 18, 1954) he was acting wholly under the undue influence of Feigenholtz and Busch. Therefore they say that the instrument is invalid.

At trial, petitioners testified that the last time they saw their father was in Chicago in 1955, although both [54 Ill.2d 177] stated they had several telephone conversations with him after this meeting and had corresponded with him. Florence Breault, Oscar's second wife and petitioners' mother, testified that from approximately 1951 or 1952 until his death, Oscar had visited them and sent gifts on two occasions.

Estelle Breault, the surviving wife and income beneficiary under his will, testified that she and Oscar lived in Illinois from the date of their marriage (November 9, 1954) until September, 1956, when they moved to Florida, where they resided until his death (July 16, 1959). While in Florida, she stated that he managed an automobile shop, which was owned by the trust, and raced automobiles. He had three different boats during this period and several motor vehicles for his personal use.

The sole witness to testify to the circumstances occurring at the time Oscar executed his will was Eugene A. Busch, the attorney who drafted the contested document and who represented the Brolite Company as its attorney in various matters. Called as an adverse witness (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 110, par. 60), he stated that on November

Page 7

15, 1954, Oscar telephoned and informed him that he had remarried and wished to execute a will similar to that of his mother's. Oscar arrived at Busch's office with a copy of her will and instructed Busch as to the disposition of his estate. The powers of the trustees contained in his mother's will were adopted in his will with only minor variations. He made his wife Estelle the income beneficiary of the trust during her lifetime, and upon her death this income was to be paid to his three children. The trust, of which Feigenholtz was designated as sole trustee, was to continue until the youngest child reached age 40, then to terminate and each to receive 5% Of the estate; the 85% Balance was to be paid to Wesley Memorial Hospital (a respondent).

Busch denied that he told Oscar what provisions to put in the instrument, and when Busch inquired as to the [54 Ill.2d 178] size of the bequest to Oscar's children, I.e., 5% Each, Oscar replied that he had not seen Kenneth for years, and Florence, his second wife, had just concluded a bitter divorce action which he claimed had resulted in a judgment against him for $250,000. Upon Busch's further inquiry as to the reasons why Oscar wanted to have his children wait until the youngest reached the age of 40 before the corpus was to be distributed to them, Oscar replied, 'I know whatever money I give to the kids will find its way into her (Florence) hands * * *.' Oscar then stated that he wanted Feigenholtz to be the trustee because he and Feigenholtz had worked well together and the latter had managed the Brolite Company. Oscar also believed that Feigenholtz, a business consultant, was a former professor at a Chicago area law school.

A copy of the prepared will was given to Oscar on November 16, and two days later he visited Busch's office and executed the document. Before...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Buck v. Alton Memorial Hospital, 79-116
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 9 Julio 1980
    ...... (Breault v. Feigenholtz (1973), 54 Ill.2d 173, . Page 1071 . [41 Ill.Dec. 573] 296 N.E.2d 3; Gagliardo v. ......
  • Estate of Kline, In re
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 19 Mayo 1993
    ......960, 448 N.E.2d 872, quoting Breault v. Feigenholtz (1973), 54 Ill.2d 173, 181, 296 N.E.2d 3. .         A rebuttable ......
  • Estate of Ciesiolkiewicz, In re, 1-91-1823
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 2 Marzo 1993
    ...... (Breault v. Feigenholtz (1973), 54 Ill.2d 173, 181, 296 N.E.2d 3, 9.) The undue influence must cause the ......
  • Kelley v. First State Bank of Princeton
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 13 Febrero 1980
    ......'s freedom concerning the disposition of his estate and render his will that of another." Breault" v. . Page 256 . [36 Ill.Dec. 575] Feigenholtz (1973), 54 Ill.2d 173, 181, 296 N.E.2d 3, 9. .  \xC2"......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT