Eason v. Eason

• Decision Date: 15 January 1962
• Docket Number: No. 5274,5274
• Citation: 203 Va. 246,123 S.E.2d 361
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: ROBERT R. EASON, ET AL. v. CAMILLUS F. EASON, ET AL. Record

Page 361

123 S.E.2d 361

203 Va. 246

ROBERT R. EASON, ET AL. v. CAMILLUS F. EASON, ET AL.

Record No. 5274.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

January 15, 1962.

George E. Allen (A. A. Bangel; Allen, Allen, Allen & Allen; Bangel, Bangel & Bangel, on brief), for the appellants.

James N. Garrett (Allen J. Gordon; James N. Garrett, Jr., on brief), for appellees, Camillus F. Eason, Lloyd Eason and Stanley G. Bryan, Executors, etc.

M. T. Bohannon (Herbert & Bohannon, on brief), for appellee, Methodist Home for the Aged.

JUDGE: CARRICO

CARRICO, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

On November 2, 1959, the will of Mary F. Eason, deceased, was admitted to probate in the clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Norfolk County. Samuel W. Eason, Robert R. Eason and James L. Eason, hereinafter referred to as the contestants, filed an appeal from the order of probate, pursuant to the provisions of § 64-74, Code of Virginia, 1950. Camillus Eason, and the other legatees and devisees named in the will, together with the trustees and executors thereof, hereinafter referred to as the proponents, were served with notice of the appeal and appeared and participated in the proceedings.

A jury was impanelled to hear the appeal and the sole issue presented to the jury, after the introduction of all of the evidence, related to the mental competency of the testatrix. The jury returned a verdict upholding the validity of the will. The contestants' motion to set aside the verdict was overruled and a final decree approving the verdict was entered on June 2, 1960. From this decree we granted the contestants an appeal.

The evidence presented to the jury shows that Mary Frances Eason, who was a retired school teacher, executed the disputed will on October 26, 1959, three days before her death on October 29. She was 88 years of age at the time of her death.

Miss Eason, or Miss Mary as she was generally known, left a sizeable estate consisting of stocks, currency and large tracts of land at Hickory, Virginia. She left surviving her as her next of kin a brother, James L. Eason, or La Salle, and two nephews, Samuel W. Eason, of Summit, New Jersey, and Robert R. Eason, of Buena Vista, Virginia, both of whom are doctors.

In the will in question, Miss Eason stated that she had already sufficiently provided for La Salle, but left $1,000.00 in trust for his burial; she provided for the two employees on her farm; she made provisions for the care of her family burial ground; she devised a farm of 100 acres to Camillus F. Eason, a distant cousin, and a namesake of her deceased brother of whom she had been very fond. All the rest of her property she left to charitable institutions, including the Norfolk General Hospital and the Methodist Home for the Aged, except that she bequeathed to her two nephews the sum of $5.00 each, stating in her will that she was 'reminded of the unkind treatment shown' to her by them and was also 'reminded of the monies which they took from me.'

Numerous letters, written by Miss Mary to her two nephews over a period extending from 1952 to shortly before her death, were introduced into evidence. These letters, together with the oral testimony, show that prior to 1956 she was affectionately attached to the nephews and intended that they should have her property. In fact, on September 14, 1953, she executed a deed conveying her real property to them, and although this deed was never recorded, she mailed it to Robert Eason on May 10, 1955.

In 1954, she made a gift of $4,800.00 in cash to Samuel Eason.

Miss Eason had supported her brother La Salle for many years, providing him with food and a place to live on her farm. His only income was a pension of $101.00 per month. It is apparent from the testimony that Miss Mary had the usual sisterly affection for La Salle. However, in 1954, when La Salle was in his 80's, he married a woman to whom Miss Mary took a violent dislike.

Although Miss Mary sided with La Salle, even paying his attorney's fees in subsequent non-support and divorce proceedings, she never forgave him for his marriage. She was so outspoken in her dislike of La Salle's wife that she became fearful that a suit would be brought against her for slander or alienation of affections and that her property might be in jeopardy as a result thereof. In May, 1955, she called in her two nephews for consultation and advice.

It was suggested by the nephews that she convey her property to them, which she did by a deed dated May 2, 1955, reserving a life estate and the right to harvest all growing crops.

On October 24, 1955, Miss Mary executed a will in which she stated that she was making no provision for La Salle as she had provided many comforts for him in the past. The will devised all of her estate, except for certain personal property, to her two nephews. On January 12, 1956, she established savings accounts in the sum of $8,100.00 each, for her two nephews and had the deposit books therefor forwarded to them by the banks. At the trial they denied any knowledge of the execution of the will, at the time, and denied any knowledge of the deposits until they received the deposit books.

In December, 1955, Miss Mary consulted an attorney, Thomas H. Willcox, Jr., concerning her tax liability arising from the transfer of her property to her nephews. At a conference with Miss Mary and the nephews the attorney advised that since the deed of May 2, 1955, had reserved the growing crops, she still held title to the timber on the land. He suggested that Miss Mary should sell the timber to the two doctors who in turn would give her seven promissory notes for $6,000.00 each, payable over a period of seven years, and that if she wished she could make gifts to the nephews of the notes as they became due and thus reduce the tax liability.

Mr. Willcox advised the nephews that they should have evidence to show that Miss Mary was competent to convey the property and timber to them. Accordingly, they took her to Dr. Marvin S. Herrington, who had previously treated her, and to two bankers with whom she had transacted business. Each of these gentlemen signed written statements attesting to Miss Mary's ability to handle her business affairs.

On March 1, 1956, Miss Mary executed a deed conveying the timber to Samuel and Robert Eason and they delivered to her seven non-interest bearing and non-negotiable notes.

Thereafter, Miss Mary learned that her nephews had advertised a sale of the timber and she voiced vigorous objection thereto. At this point her letters to them took a turn from the affectionate note previously displayed to one of accusation and distrust. She asserted that the conveyance of her land to them had been made with the understanding that it would be re-conveyed to her when her trouble with La Salle's wife had terminated.

On April 27, 1956, Miss Mary filed a sworn bill of complaint against her nephews alleging that the conveyance of her land on May 2, 1955, had been made in trust, to be held by the nephews at her will and to be re-conveyed to her upon her request. The bill further alleged that the deed to the timber had been procured through duress, coercion and undue influence. The bill prayed that a reconveyance of the land to her be decreed and that the timber deed be declared null and void.

This suit was compromised by Miss Eason and her nephews and an agreement was entered into as a result of which a sale of the timber was consummated for $57,000.00. Pursuant to the agreement and a decree approving the same, the proceeds of the sale, less a sales commission of $2,850.00, were paid into court. From this fund $7,500.00 was paid to the attorneys for the nephews, $5,000.00 to Miss Eason's attorney and the balance of $41,650.00 was paid directly to Miss Eason. The nephews re-conveyed the land to Miss Eason, and she agreed that she would execute a will devising it to them. She surrendered the notes for $42,000.00 that had been given to her by the nephews for the timber.

Following the settlement of the suit, Miss Eason wrote the nephews demanding to be released from her agreement to devise her property to them. She constantly accused them of having stolen her land and money, and insisted that she had made the conveyances to them upon their promise to re-convey to her.

In April, 1957, a crucial exchange of correspondence took place between Miss Eason and her nephews. On April 2 she wrote to Samuel Eason and asked that he and Robert sell her one acre of the land which was subject to the agreement to devise. She stated that she wanted to 'build me a small home so I can say its mine' rather than 'to live in the big house alone and only life estate.'

On April 12 Samuel Eason sent her the following letter:

'Dear Aunt Mary:

'I wrote to Robert about you acquiring the lot to build on. He refused your request. There is nothing more I can do about it. Received your last letter. I am sorry bitterness remains in your mind. I think it is for the best that I stop writing or phoning. Best wishes, Sam.'

On the bottom of this letter Miss Eason had written, 'I wanted to fix a little for my brother. This is his reply.'

Following this refusal by the nephews, Miss Eason's letters to them became more harsh and accusing and her demands that they release their claim to her land became more forceful. She threatened to bring suit against them where they resided, and had an attorney write them that such action would be taken. Finally, on October 22, 1957, Robert Eason executed an agreement releasing her from the agreement to devise, providing therein that she would be free thereafter to make a devise, so far as his interest was concerned, to whomever she might elect. Samuel Eason executed a similar release on November 11, 1957.

On December 2, 1957, Miss Eason prepared, wholly in her own handwriting, and executed a will which was identical, in its provisions concerning the disposition of her property, with the will in dispute...