In re Sinift's Estate
| Decision Date | 27 July 1943 |
| Docket Number | 46183. |
| Citation | 10 N.W.2d 550,233 Iowa 800 |
| Parties | In re SINIFT'S ESTATE. SNUGGS et al. v. BAKER et al. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Lucas County; Harold V. Levis Judge.
W. W. Bullman, Virgil E. Meyer, and Leo A. Hoegh all of Chariton, for appellants.
A V. Hass, of Chariton, and O. M. Slaymaker, R. E. Killmar, and D. D. Slaymaker, all of Osceola, for appellees.
Nan B. Sinift died November 25, 1941, a childless widow, about 88 years of age. On April 14, 1939, she had executed a will which directed payment of debts, expenses, etc., bequeathed $500 to Silas Baxter, a half-brother, and devised and bequeathed all the residue of her estate to two half-brothers, B. W. Baxter and Leonard Baxter. Norman F. Baker was nominated to be executor. He promptly filed the will for probate the day following her death. Various heirs contested its probate asserting insufficient execution, lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. Trial was had which resulted in a directed verdict for proponents. Contestants appeal to this court. The only error assigned here asserts that the evidence presented a jury question on the issue of testamentary capacity.
In this case, as in most cases, there are certain facts about which there was no substantial dispute in the evidence. They form a background for consideration of the facts which are in dispute. Some of the undisputed facts are the following:
The decedent was the defendant in the case of Sinift v. Sinift, 284 N.W. 91; Id., 229 Iowa 56, 293 N.W. 841, originally decided by this court on February 7, 1939, and, after the granting of a rehearing, again decided September 24, 1940. A second petition for rehearing was overruled January 17, 1941. The will in question was executed, April 14, 1939, while said case was pending in this court. The final opinion of this court in that case gives a background of the manner in which Nan Sinift and her husband John acquired substantial wealth during their married life. Part of that wealth is an inducement for this contest.
Nan Sinift had been previously married. She had no children from either marriage. Her heirs, therefore, are collateral ones. Her mother's maiden name was Christena Wells. She first married one Crawford and had one son, John Crawford. She later married Tom Curtis and had four children, Susan A. Knight, Ruth Lyeburger, Ed Curtis and Nan Sinift. Thereafter she married Benj. Baxter and had three sons, Leonard, Ben and Silas Baxter, the three of whom were the legatees under Nan's will.
The three Curtis children, other than Nan, were all deceased when Nan's will was executed, each leaving no child or spouse. John Crawford was also deceased. He left surviving him a daughter, Mary Hickman, one of the contestants herein. Silas Baxter died in June, 1939, leaving two children, Helen Smith and Oral Baxter, contestants herein. Several other contestants assert that they are heirs of Nan, but their exact relationships to her are a bit difficult to determine from the record before us.
Nan Sinift and her husband John had lived on a farm in Warren County until a few months before John died on March 29, 1935. After his death Nan purchased a home in Chariton and moved there in the spring of 1936. Nan and John had been very frugal and had become wealthy. Nan lived to herself in her home in Chariton. In spite of her wealth, she continued her frugal habits which she had always known and which were responsible in large measure for that wealth.
O. M. Slaymaker of Osceola was counsel for Nan Sinift in the litigation of Sinift v. Sinift, supra. The will in question was drawn by him in his office in Osceola and was there executed. The only people present at the time of its preparation and execution were Mrs. Sinift, Mr. Slaymaker, and two stenographers who signed as witnesses to the will. When the will was prepared only Mrs. Sinift, Mr. Slaymaker, and his private secretary, Gretta Crosby, were in the room. The three of them were there while the will was dictated by Mr. Slaymaker. As it was typed, an original and one copy were prepared. After it was typed, Mr. Slaymaker took one copy and Mrs. Sinift the other. Mr. Slaymaker read his copy aloud to her while she was reading her copy. Mrs. Sinift said it was the way she wanted it. The other stenographer, Florence Thornton, was then called into the room and the will was executed.
As above indicated, the foregoing facts form a background for consideration of the testimony on the issue of testamentary capacity. The testimony on that issue is solely that of the contestants. Proponents introduced evidence of the due and legal execution of the will, above reviewed. Contestants then introduced evidence on the issue of testamentary capacity. At the conclusion of contestants' evidence, proponents made a motion for directed verdict. Contestants concede here that the only debatable issue was that of testamentary capacity. One of the grounds for proponents' motion was that "if the Court were to submit this case to the jury under the record as it now stands, and if the jury were to return a verdict in favor of the contestants and against these proponents, it would be the duty of the Court to set the same aside as being contrary to the record evidence and contrary to law, and that being true, it would be the duty of the Court in the first instance to direct the jury to return a verdict against the contestants and in favor of the proponents."
After very careful consideration of the record, as evidence by a well considered opinion, the court reached the following conclusion: "As I listened to this record, I am compelled to but one conclusion, and that is that the Court could not let that verdict stand were the jury to bring in a verdict on the evidence thus far adduced to the effect that this testatrix was of unsound mind to the extent that she did not have capacity to make the will at that time."
The correctness of the foregoing decision presents the only question for our decision herein.
The first witness for contestants testified that he went to school with decedent in 1861 and 1862; she was seven months older than he; her birthday was September 15, 1853. The next witness testified that, in the fall of 1938 or 1939, he sold decedent a slab as a grave marker for her burial lot and placed the same thereon and at her direction inscribed her birth as occurring in 1860.
Norman Baker, the executor, testified that he operates a bank at Lucas, Iowa, and was decedent's banker; on April 14, 1939, she had $1,965.73 in her checking account, $9,100 on C.D., a note and mortgage on real estate signed by Ben Baxter for $3,000, 520 acres of land in Warren County, the income for life and half of the fee to a house in Liberty Center that rented for about $7 per month, annuities with John Hancock Life Insurance Company paying $60 or $65 per month, the income from $40,000 of government bonds belonging to her husband's estate and her home in Chariton for which she paid $4,000. On January 1, 1941, her checking account was $3,312 and the C.D. was $10395. Her net income was at least $100 per month. She drew checks on the bank from 1935 to the time of her death. A number of checks were identified. The body of the checks was written by some one else but they were all signed by Mrs. Sinift. On February 10, 1940, she made a settlement of her lawsuit over her husband's will which involved a payment to her of $25,000.
A neighbor that lived across the street from decedent testified that in 1938 she talked about getting an old age pension. In the fall of 1940 she told of having a boy friend. In 1941, she would ask a question and before it was answered would ask another. In 1937 she paid a girl 10 cents a night to stay with her and complained that she did not have any money to pay her with. She locked up her home every night about 7 P. M., bolting the door with a hammer. In the spring of 1939 she took a toy rake away from a little boy, saying it was hers; later she gave it back to him as a gift. In the summer of 1941 she tried to take some empty pop bottles away from some children, saying they were worth money and would buy her a loaf of bread. She did not remember the witness' name and asked what it was every time she talked to her. In 1936 she asked her to get her a boy friend. Oftentimes she would not open her front door to those who knocked, although she was at home. She had trouble getting down her front steps, seemed ready to topple; often talked to herself. In 1938 she brought over a printed receipt, said she could not read it, was holding it upside down, about 12 inches from her eyes. The witness had heard that John and Nan Sinift had had bandits on their farm who tried to rob them.
The girl who had stayed with decedent testified she was 15 years old at the time of trial; had stayed with decedent several times at night from 1937 to 1941; decedent did not talk much; bolted the doors with a hammer, locked them with a key, put chairs in front of them, put cushions from the davenport on the chairs, saying she was afraid mice would get into the davenport; she did not read; said she would pay a dime at night, but in the morning would not have any money and would bring a dime over later; she left her ice box open, the meat spoiled, but she cooked it anyway and ate it; she refused to pay 15 cents a gallon to stem gooseberries because it was too much money; she kept all the windows closed.
Mary Hickman, one of the contestants, testified to friendly relationship between herself and decedent, but her testimony does not otherwise appear to bear upon the issue of testamentary capacity.
Another witness testified that the decedent talked to herself and locked herself out of the house twice in the spring of 193...
To continue reading
Request your trial