Butler v. Stegmaier
| Docket Number | Record No. 0584-22-2 |
| Decision Date | 28 March 2023 |
| Citation | 77 Va.App. 115,884 S.E.2d 806 |
| Parties | Keefe BUTLER v. Martha Ann Thomas STEGMAIER, as the Executor of the Estate of William Oliver Helton, Jr. and in Her Individual Capacity, and William Keith Stegmaier |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
William W. Sleeth III, Williamsburg (Gregory S. Bean, Williamsburg; Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, on briefs), for appellant.
Daniel R. Quarles, Williamsburg (Otey Smith & Quarles, on brief), for appellee Martha Ann Thomas Stegmaier.
Present: Judges Athey, Chaney and Lorish
OPINION BY JUDGE CLIFFORD L. ATHEY, JR.
Keefe Butler ("Butler") filed this cause of action in the Circuit Court of New Kent County ("circuit court") contesting probate of William Helton, Jr.’s ("Helton") March 30, 2017 will ("2017 Will"). Butler also sought production of and admission to probate of Helton's previous August 6, 2012 will ("2012 Will"). In his complaint, Butler alleged that Martha Stegmaier ("Martha") exercised undue influence over Helton and breached both her fiduciary and statutory duties as executor. Butler also sought injunctive relief, an accounting, and to set aside the pay-on-death provisions in Helton's accounts at Bank of America. Finally, Butler sought to rescind the will and be awarded his attorney fees. On appeal, Butler contends that the circuit court erred by: (1) failing to grant his motion to strike the testimony of an expert witness presented by Martha, (2) failing to grant his objections and motions to strike certain questions and answers regarding his "live in" girlfriends, (3) granting Martha's renewed motion to strike his claim seeking to set aside the pay-on-death provisions of certain bank accounts, (4) failing to recognize a good faith and probable cause exception to the enforcement of a no contest provision in the 2017 Will, and (5) granting Martha's demurrer to his claim seeking recission of the will and an award of attorney fees. For the reasons to follow, we affirm the circuit court.
Helton and his wife Carol were neighbors of Martha and William Stegmaier. Kalle and Keefe Butler are Carol's grandchildren from a previous marriage. Following Carol's death in May 2012, Martha began assisting the eighty-eight-year-old Helton with various tasks.
On August 6, 2012, Helton executed the 2012 Will wherein he bequeathed $40,000 each to his deceased wife's grandchildren, Butler and Kalle. Certain other bequests were also made, and Helton's residuary estate was to be divided between Butler and Kalle. However, on December 22, 2016, Helton subsequently executed a second will ("2016 Will") which reduced the amount of his bequests to $20,000 each to Butler and Kalle. Certain additional bequests were also made including $5,000 each to Martha and William Stegmaier. The 2016 Will also made Martha the beneficiary of Helton's tangible personal property and residuary estate.
Next, on March 30, 2017, Helton executed his third and final will. In the 2017 Will, Helton further reduced the bequest to Butler to $10,000 but maintained the $20,000 bequest for Kalle. In the 2017 Will, Martha and William Stegmaier were again left bequests of $5,000 each, and Martha remained the beneficiary of Helton's tangible personal property and residuary estate. However, for the first time, William Stegmaier was designated as a contingent beneficiary of the residuary estate, and in the event both Martha and William Stegmaier predeceased Helton, Martha's sister Patricia Thomas would receive the residuary estate. Martha was designated executor, her husband contingent executor, and Patricia Thomas executor in the event both Martha and William Stegmaier predeceased Helton. A "no contest" provision was also inserted in the 2017 Will revoking the interests of any beneficiary who challenged the validity of the will or its provisions.
Prior to his death, Helton maintained various bank accounts at Bank of America and Martha held his power of attorney related to the bank accounts. In July of 2016, Helton jointly titled those accounts in Martha's name, giving her a right of survivorship in the accounts.
Following Helton's death on November 26, 2017, the circuit court admitted the 2017 Will to probate, and Martha qualified as executor of Helton's estate. In response, Butler filed his complaint seeking to impeach the 2017 Will, effect its recission, and establish the 2012 Will. The complaint also sought to set aside the pay-on-death and joint account designations of Martha on the Bank of America accounts, enjoin her from taking any detrimental action with respect to the property of the estate, and recover his attorney fees.1 Martha demurred to the complaint and filed a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that Butler had violated the 2017 Will's no contest provision. After conducting a hearing on the demurrer, the circuit court sustained the demurrer as to Butler's claim for recission of the 2017 Will and attorney fees.
During the subsequent five-day jury trial, Martha was permitted, over Butler's objection, to cross-examine him about his "live in" girlfriends. At the conclusion of Butler's case in chief, the circuit court granted Martha's renewed motion to strike the evidence as to Butler's claim seeking to set aside the pay-on-death and joint account designations regarding the Bank of America accounts while denying her motion to strike Butler's evidence in its entirety.
During Martha's case in chief, Sherri Nelson ("Nelson"), an attorney whose practice included wills and trusts, was permitted to testify as an expert witness without objection. Following her direct examination, Butler cross-examined Nelson before Martha asked some additional questions of her on redirect. The following exchange then occurred:
The circuit court then briefly recessed, and upon resumption of proceedings, Butler moved to strike Nelson's expert testimony for lack of foundation, speculation, failure to consider all variables, improper methods, and unreliability because she had not testified that she held her opinions to a reasonable degree of professional certainty, nor had she reviewed the 31 exhibits attached to a deposition she relied on as a basis for her expert opinions. Although the circuit court initially granted the motion to strike the expert's testimony, the following morning the circuit court reconsidered its ruling sua sponte and denied the motion to strike the testimony based upon the motion to strike not being timely made.
The jury subsequently decided that the 2017 Will was the valid last will of Helton and directed that the 2017 Will be admitted to probate. Martha then renewed her motion for a declaratory judgment on her counterclaim alleging that Butler had violated the no contest provision in the 2017 Will. Although Butler acknowledged that the will contest he initiated violated the no contest provision of Helton's 2017 Will, he argued that because he "acted with good faith and probable cause" the no contest provision ought not be enforced against him. The circuit court subsequently held that Butler had violated the no contest provision in the 2017 Will. On June 1, 2021, the circuit court entered an order admitting the 2017 Will to probate, revoked the 2017 Will provisions that benefitted Butler, and dismissed any remaining claims.
Butler appealed that decision to the Virginia Supreme Court, and that appeal was dismissed due to the order not being final because it did not completely dispose of Martha's counterclaim. Subsequently, the circuit court, by final order, held that Martha was "entitled to the judicial declaration she sought" in her counterclaim and incorporated the June 1, 2021 order therein. Butler appealed the final order to this Court.
A circuit court's decision to admit testimony is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Jackson v. Jackson , 69 Va. App. 243, 247, 817 S.E.2d 676 (2018), aff'd , 298 Va. 132, 835 S.E.2d 68 (2019). An appellate court "review[s] a circuit court's decision on a motion to strike in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and the non-moving party ‘must be given the benefit of all substantial conflict in the evidence, and all fair inferences that may be drawn therefrom.’ " Dill v. Kroger Ltd. P'ship I , 300 Va. 99, 109, 860 S.E.2d 372 (2021) (quoting Egan v. Butler , 290 Va. 62, 73, 772 S.E.2d 765 (2015) ). We review de novo questions of law.
Yourko v. Yourko , 74 Va. App. 80, 87, 866 S.E.2d 588 (2021).
Whether a beneficiary has triggered a no contest clause in a will is Keener v. Keener , 278 Va. 435, 441, 682 S.E.2d 545 (2009) (quoting Womble v. Gunter , 198 Va. 522, 529, 95 S.E.2d 213 (1956) ). "Accordingly, we accord deference to the circuit court's findings of historical fact, but review questions of law de novo." Id.
"We examine the circuit court's decision to sustain [a] demurrer under a de novo standard of review because it is a pure question of...
To continue reading
Request your trial