Dobija v. Hopey
| Decision Date | 05 February 1968 |
| Parties | Frank A. DOBIJA v. Estella HOPEY et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Antone L. Silva, New Bedford, for Frank A. Dobija.
No argument or brief for Estella Hopey.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK and REARDON, JJ.
This is an appeal from two decrees of the Probate Court disallowing an instrument purporting to be the last will of Katherine Rusinowski and appointing Estella Hopey administratrix of her estate. Frank A. Dobija, the executor named in the instrument, appealed. Except for brief findings contained in the decree disallowing the will, the judge made no findings of fact. The evidence is reported. Under familiar principles this court will not reverse the decision of the judge unless convinced that it is plainly wrong. Culhane v. Foley, 305 Mass. 542, 543, 26 N.E.2d 331.
The deceased was a widow who lived alone in her home at Fairhaven until her death on August 8, 1965, at the age of about seventy-five years. She had been blind for twelve to fourteen years. She had no children and her only heirs at law were Estella Hopey, a niece, and Matthew Sadowski and John Cygan, nephews. The whereabouts of Cygan were unknown. The instrument offered for probate was executed on July 27, 1965; it was witnessed by four persons, one of whom was Mr. Antone L. Silva, the attorney who drafted it. Under the instrument the deceased disposed of her property as follows: Her 'home and all of the land adjoining' to the appellant; $1,000 to her niece, Estella Hopey; $1,500 to her grandniece Claire Grant, daughter of Estella; $5 to her nephew Matthew Sadowski; and the residue to the appellant.
The finding on which the judge appears to have rested his decree was, '(I)t appearing that since the drafting of the will is a sacred function and should express the complete and unmolested intentions of the drafter, and it further appearing that because of the language barrier and lack of proper communications, the Court is not convinced that said instrument possesses these qualifications.'
The making of the will took place in these circumstances. Mr. Silva, who drafted the will, testified that he wrote it in the deceased's presence after having ascertained her intentions. When he finished drafting the instrument he read it to her and asked her if it was what she wanted and she replied: '(Y)es, it is, I am very happy now.' Mr. Silva further testified that his client 'understood English extremely well, (and) there was no language problem.' All the other witnesses to the will corroborated Mr. Silva's testimony to the effect that the deceased had said that the will was what she wanted. In addition to Mr. Silva's testimony that he experienced no difficulty in communicating with the deceased, other witnesses, who were apparently disinterested, testified that the deceased spoke English well and understood the terms of the will and that the instrument expressed her intentions.
The only testimony capable of suggesting a different conclusion is that of Mildred Jachna, a former housekeeper of the deceased for a brief period, and Estella Hopey, a niece and one of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haddad v. Haddad
...not prevent a testator from having the capacity to execute such documents, which is the issue in this appeal. See Dobija v. Hopey, 353 Mass. 600, 603, 233 N.E.2d 920 (1968) ("We are of opinion that this evidence does not sustain the judge's finding that a language barrier or lack of communi......
-
Connecticut Jr. Republic v. Doherty
...is obviously a legal document knows its contents. Richardson v. Richards, 226 Mass. 240, 245, 115 N.E. 307 (1917). Dobija v. Hopey, 353 Mass. 600, 603, 233 N.E.2d 920 (1968). Ursini v. Goldman, 118 Conn. 554, 562, 173 A. 789 (1934). Corona v. Esposito, 4 Conn.Cir.Ct. 296, 301-302, 230 A.2d ......
-
Bruno v. Bruno
...to be fully aware of its terms, unless it can be proved that he was induced to sign it by fraud or undue influence. Dobija v. Hopey, 353 Mass. 600, 233 N.E.2d 920 (1968). Markell v. Sidney B. Pfeifer Foundation, Inc., --- Mass.App. ---, --- a, 402 N.E.2d 76 (1980). The burden of proving und......
-
Duchesneau v. Jaskoviak
...which he signed and executed it with the intention that it operate as his will. Sweet v. Boardman, 1 Mass. 258, 262. Dobija v. Hopey, 353 Mass. 600, 603, 233 N.E.2d 920. The burden of proof on these matters is on the proponent. Here again, he is aided by a presumption that a person signing ......