In re Soderstran's Estate
| Decision Date | 17 January 1950 |
| Docket Number | 31069. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re SODERSTRAN'S ESTATE. v. CORNELL. TUURAS et al. |
Proceeding in the matter of the estate of Gustav Oskar Soderstran deceased, on the petition of Juho Leonard Tuuras and others opposed by F. M. Cornell, as executor, contesting a will and praying that probate thereof be revoked.
The Superior Court for King County, James T. Lawler, J., made an order revoking a prior decree admitting the will to probate and the opponent appealed.
The Supreme Court, Beals, J., held that the evidence did not support a ruling that the will was procured by undue influence.
Order reversed with instructions.
Heideman, Flanagan & Russell, Seattle, for appellant.
Stanley C. Soderland, Seattle, for respondents.
July 22, 1948, F. M. Cornell filed in the office of the clerk of the superior court for King county a document purporting to be the will of Gustav Oskar Soderstran, together with his petition that the writing be admitted to probate as Mr Soderstran's will. On the same day, the document was presented to the superior court, testimony was taken, and an order signed and filed admitting it to probate.
By the terms of the will, Mr. Soderstran devised and bequeathed all of his property (with the exception of a bequest of one hundred dollars) to the petitioner, F. M. Cornell, naming him executor of the will, without bond, and directing that the will be executed without the intervention of the court.
August 21, 1948, J. L. Tuuras, Elsa Glade, and Selma Nyyssanen, nephew and nieces of the deceased, on their own behalf and on behalf of other unnamed heirs at law of the deceased, filed their petition contesting the will and praying that the probate thereof be revoked. The petitioners alleged that, at the time of execution of the document above referred to, Mr. Soderstran was mentally incompetent and lacked testamentary capacity. It was also alleged that the deceased was induced to execute the document by undue influence exerted upon him by Mr. Cornell and other persons.
Mr. Cornell filed his answer to the petition, denying the allegations therein contained and asking that the petition contesting the will be dismissed.
The issues presented by the pleadings came on regularly for trial during the month of January, 1949, with the result that, February 25, 1949, the court entered a decree sustaining the position of the contestants and revoking the decree admitting the will to probate, upon the ground that the document 'was not the free and voluntary will of the decedent Gustav Oskar Soderstran, but resulted from the undue influence of the beneficiary thereof, F. M. Cornell, and others.' The decree signed by the court also contained the following:
'The court finding that the decedent in this case, Gustav Oskar Soderstran, was a man 92 years of age, who had living heirs at law, and who had prior to December 22, 1947 executed a will in favor of one Emil Koskinen, which will was in existence on that date.
'The court further finding that on December 22, 1947 the decedent, Gustav Oskar Soderstran, did have testamentary capacity and was not mentally incompetent to make a will, but that he was old, tired, and infirm, was in a weakened mental and physical condition, was eccentric; and that he had poor judgment and could be easily influenced; * * *.'
From this decree, Mr. Cornell has appealed to this court.
Thereafter, the court signed an order removing Mr. Cornell as executor and appointing G. Robert Brain administrator of the estate.
Appellant makes the following assignment of errors:
The will which the trial court set aside was executed at Seattle, December 22, 1947. Mr. Soderstran, the testator, died in Seattle, July 18, 1948, at the age of ninety-two years. He left an estate of the approximate value of ten thousand dollars, the major portion thereof consisting of a six-unit apartment building at 118 West Republican street, Seattle. Mr. Soderstran occupied one of the apartents as his home, having owned the building for more than twenty years. He had been twice married, but had been a widower for several years. He was born in Finland, and understood English, which he spoke rather brokenly. It appears that he could read English, as for some years he subscribed to a Seattle daily newspaper, which he read. By his will, he bequeathed one hundred dollars to a 'stepgrandson.' Apparently, he had no blood relatives more nearly related than nephews and nieces, some of whom resided in the eastern part of the United States and some in Finland.
During the year 1944, one Emil Koskinen, a Finn, moved into one of the units in Mr. Soderstran's building, paying a very low rental of ten dollars a month therefor. A short time thereafter, Mr. Soderstran executed a will, written in longhand by Mr. Koskinen, by the provisions of which Koskinen was named as sole devisee. There was testimony to the effect that, during the year 1945, Koskinen ceased paying rent for his unit, and commenced collecting rentals from the other renants. At the time the will referred to was executed, it was evidently the understanding that Koskinen would care for Mr. Soderstran. Considerable testimony was introduced concerning this relationship between the parties, some witnesses testifying that Koskinen had taken good care of Mr. Soderstran, while others testified that the old gentleman was neglected, referring to specific instances. Witnesses called by respondents testified that Mr. Soderstran's apartment was kept clean and neat, while other witnesses testified that the apartment was filthy.
It appears that Mr. Soderstran was occasionally absent-minded and forgetful, and, at times, acted peculiarly, failing to recognize old friends, and giving other evidences of some mental deterioration.
F. M. Cornell was a friend of Mr. Soderstran, and was one of the witnesses to the will in Koskinen's favor. Mr. Soderstran gradually came to depend upon Mr. Cornell for care, rather than upon Koskinen, who testified that, during the fall of 1946, Mr. Sodestran became angry with him, accusing him of stealing money. The witness Henry Meitmann testified that, in November, 1947, Mr. Soderstran told him that Koskinen had stolen money from him.
During the month of December, 1947, Mr. Soderstran executed a power of attorney in favor of Mr. Cornell, the latter then telling Koskinen to vacate the apartment and stating that this was by Mr. Soderstran's directions.
Mr. Koskinen testified on the trial as a witness for respondents, stating that he had filed a claim against the estate in the sum of $2,450 for services rendered, and that respondents had promised him that, if they prevailed in the action, they would see that he was paid for the services which he claimed to have rendered to Mr. Soderstran.
The case was closed January 28, 1949, the court then stating that an oral opinion would be delivered from the bench at the opening of court January 31st. At the time specified, the trial court delivered a comprehensive oral summation of the evidence, which is contained in twelve pages of the statement of facts. The court stated that, at the time of the execution of the will, Mr. Soderstran enjoyed testamentary capacity, but that, in the court's opinion, the will in Cornell's favor was procured by the exercise of undue influence upon the testator.
We agree with the trial court that, from the evidence, it appears that Mr. Soderstran enjoyed testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will in question.
The burden then rested upon respondents to prove that the will which had been admitted to probate was procured by the exercise of undue influence upon the testator. In order to set aside a will upon the ground that the testator had been subjected to undue influence, the evidence of such undue influrence must be clear, cogent, and convincing. Dean v. Jordan, 194 Wash. 661, 79 P.2d 331.
Examination of the record discloses no direct evidence concerning the exercise of any influence over Mr. Soderstran by Mr. Cornell or by anyone else, who sought to induce Mr. Soderstran to make a will in Mr. Cornell's favor. No witness testified as to the exercise of any such influence whatever at the time of the execution of the will. There was some evidence that Mr. Soderstran had made one or more wills prior to the time that he made the will in favor of Mr. Koskinen, but it does not appear who would have benefited thereby. It was evidently his desire to leave his property to some friend or friends who had been kind to him and rendered the services which were necessary to him, due to his great age and bodily infirmities. Some of the witnesses testified that, at times, he spoke of leaving his property to some Lutheran church, but, apparently, this was never more than a passing thought.
Fifteen witnesses testified Before the trial court concerning the subject matter of this action. Seven of these witnesses were called by respondents, in addition to the physician who had attended Mr. Soderstran. Six witnesses were called by appellant, in addition to Arthur B. Langlie, Esquire, who had prepared the will which was admitted to probate.
The will which Mr. Soderstran had executed in Koskinen's favor was introduced as an exhibit....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Soderstran's Estate
...213 P.2d 949 35 Wn.2d 448In re SODERSTRAN'S ESTATE. TUURAS et al. v. CORNELL. No. 31069.Supreme Court of Washington, en Banc.January 17, [213 P.2d 950] Heideman, Flanagan & Russell, Seattle, for appellant. Stanley C. Soderland, Seattle, for respondents. [35 Wn.2d 449] BEALS, Justice. July 2......