Deller v. Deller (In re Deller's Estate)

• Decision Date: 11 January 1910
• Citation: 141 Wis. 255,124 N.W. 278
• Parties: IN RE DELLER'S ESTATE. DELLER v. DELLER ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

141 Wis. 255

124 N.W. 278

IN RE DELLER'S ESTATE.

DELLER

v.DELLER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 11, 1910.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; John C. Ludwig, Judge.

Proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Joseph Deller. From a judgment of the circuit court, modifying the allowance of the claim of Eva Deller, widow, both she and Abraham G. Deller and others, executors, appeal. Reversed on appeal of the executors, and remanded.

The deceased, Joseph Deller, was married on May 23, 1895, to the petitioner herein. At that time he was a widower aged 66, and she was a spinster aged 41. The deceased had several children by his former wife, who were living at the time of his marriage in 1895 and are still living. No issue was born of the marriage which took place at that time. On April 5, 1895, the following antenuptial agreement was executed and acknowledged between the parties: “This agreement, made and entered into this 5th day of April, A. D., 1895, by and between Joseph Deller, party of the first part, and Miss Eva Baer, party of the second part, witnesseth, that whereas a marriage is about to be solemnized between the parties hereto, and the said Joseph Deller is desirous of making provision for a fit and proper settlement to the use of the said Miss Eva Baer, his intended wife, now therefore, the said Joseph Deller, party of the first part, does hereby agree, if the said marriage be solemnized as aforesaid, that during his natural life, and (the life of) the said Miss Eva Baer, his intended wife, he will in sickness and in health provide for her all the necessaries of life, and such luxuries as may be suitable and proper considering their circumstances, and in all things be a good and faithful husband so long as they both shall live; and the said Joseph Deller does further covenant and agree, in case said marriage be solemnized as aforesaid, that in case of his death prior to the death of his said wife that she, the said Eva Baer, shall have out of the estate of the said Joseph Deller, the sum of ($5,000.00) five thousand dollars, lawful money of the United States, to be by her received for her sole and separate use and benefit and at her death to be disposed of by her as she may see fit, the same to be in lieu of her dower right in the estate of the said Joseph Deller, and in lieu of all right, title and interest which she would have by law in the said estate. And the said Miss Eva Baer, in consideration of the premises, does for herself, her heirs, executors and administrators covenant and agree with the said Joseph Deller, her intended husband, that the pecuniary provision hereinbefore made for her shall be in full satisfaction of her dower in the estate of the said Joseph Deller and shall bar her from claiming the same if she shall survive him after said marriage, and further if the said marriage shall occur as aforesaid and she shall survive him, that she shall not claim any share in his personal estate, unless some part thereof is given her by his last will or some act done subsequent to the execution of these premises. And it is further agreed by and between the parties hereto, that their respective property possessed at the time of the said marriage, or which either of them shall thereafter acquire, shall remain the separate property of each and may be by them conveyed or transferred in the same manner as if they were single and unmarried. And the said Miss Eva Baer does accept the foregoing provisions on her part, in case the said marriage shall be solemnized as aforesaid, and does agree to comfort the said Joseph Deller in sickness and in health, and ever to be a prudent and faithful wife, during their lives.”

Thereafter the following postnuptial agreement was executed and acknowledged: “Whereas, a certain marriage settlement bearing date the 5th day of April, A. D., 1895, was made and executed by and between Joseph Deller of the City of Mineral Point, in Iowa County, Wisconsin, and Miss Eva Baer (now Mrs. Eva Deller) formerly of the City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which said marriage settlement is hereto attached; and whereas, said parties are informed and believe that said marriage settlement does not express with sufficient clearness the intention in the minds of the parties thereto at the time of the execution of said marriage settlement: Now, therefore, it is hereby mutually understood and expressly declared by and between the parties to said marriage settlement that it was the intention of both parties at the time of the execution thereof that said Joseph Deller was to provide for his said wife in sickness and in health all the necessaries of life and such luxuries as may be suitable and proper considering their circumstances, for and during the period of his natural life, and that such provision should not continue beyond the life of said Joseph Deller, but that at his death his said wife was to receive five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) out of his estate and that she should have no other or further claim upon his estate. In witness whereof the said parties have hereunto set their hands and seals this 7th day of October, A. D. 1895.”

Joseph Deller died in June, 1907, leaving an estate of about $85,000, all of which was disposed of by will. After the will had been admitted to probate, the widow filed a petition praying for an allowance of the articles of personal property specified in subdivision 1, § 3935, St. 1898, and praying for a proper allowance for her support during the administration of the estate, under subdivision 2 of said section. The executors contested such allowances on the ground that the antenuptial agreement barred the petitioner's right to them. On September 25, 1907, the county court made an order granting the prayer of the petition, from which order an appeal was taken to the circuit court of Milwaukee county. Thereafter, and on December 31, 1907, the widow filed in the county court a renunciation of certain provisions made for her in the decedent's will. On January 22, 1908, the executors paid to the widow the $5,000 stipulated for in the antenuptial agreement; it being stipulated at the time that the acceptance of such sum should not be construed as a waiver of the widow's right to claim interest thereon or to claim the statutory allowances for which she had petitioned. On the trial on the appeal, the circuit court held that the widow was entitled to the allowances provided for by subdivisions 1, 2, § 3935, St. 1898. The court, however, reduced the allowance of $100 per month, made by the county court to the widow for support during the pendency of the administration proceedings, to $60 per month.

The petitioner appeals from this portion of the judgment of the circuit court, and the executors appeal from the judgment on the ground that no allowance whatever should have been made. The circuit court further found as matters of fact and as conclusions of law that the postnuptial contract was invalid and that the antenuptial contract was not affected thereby; and, further, that the antenuptial contract on its face contained an agreement to provide for the support and maintenance of the petitioner during her natural life, in addition to paying the sum of $5,000 as provided in said agreement.

Scheiber & Orth, for appellants.

Quarles, Spence & Quarles (George Lines, of counsel), for respondent.

BARNES, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The authorities, aside from those of Alabama, are quite unanimous in holding that a valid antenuptial agreement may be made, and this court so decided in West v. Walker, 77 Wis. 557, 46 N. W. 819. Usually in such contracts the woman, in consideration of a specific allowance in money or property or both, on the death of her husband, surrenders the provisions which the law makes for her in the event of the intestacy of the husband or of her election to renounce the provision made for her by will. An agreement whereby the future wife releases her claim to her right of dower and other rights in the estate of her husband upon his demise must be free from fraud or imposition, and it will be regarded with the most rigid scrutiny, and will not be approved where it appears that the future wife has been overreached or deceived, or has been induced by false representations to make the contract. Pierce v. Pierce, 71 N. Y. 154, 27 Am. Rep. 22;Warner v. Warner, 18 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 151;Kline's Estate, 64 Pa. 122;Kline v. Kline, 57 Pa. 120, 98 Am. Dec. 206;Tarbell v. Tarbell, 10 Allen (Mass.) 278;In re Devoe, 113 Iowa, 4, 84 N. W. 923;Mintier v. Mintier, 28 Ohio St. 307; 21 Cyc. 1249, and cases cited.

In Kline v. Kline, supra, it is said: “The relation of parties betrothed to each other is one of unbounded confidence, especially on the part of the woman. They are not in the same category with buyers and sellers, and are not dealing at arms length.” Language of similar import is used by the New York Court of Appeals in Graham v. Graham, 143 N. Y. 573, 580, 38 N. E. 722, 724, where it is said: “The relations between the intended wife and her future husband are regarded as confidential and naturally give to the man great influence over the woman with whom he has entered into an engagement of marriage.” Some of the cases hold that a contract barring dower will not be upheld unless it secures for the wife a provision for her support after the death of her husband. In re Pulling, 93 Mich. 274, 52 N. W. 1116;Mowser v. Mowser, 87 Mo. 437;Graham v. Graham, 67 Hun, 329, 22 N. Y. Supp. 299. We do not approve of this broad rule, however. The foregoing decisions, as well as many others that might be cited, indicate the attitude of courts toward contracts of this character, and the alacrity with which they grant relief from bargains improvidently made either through ignorance or misrepresentation, where unfair and inadequate provision is made for the support of the wife upon the death of her husband.

The contract before us was...