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

• Decision Date: 03 April 1934
• Citation: 254 N.W. 363,215 Wis. 115
• Parties: IN RE KOEFFLER'S ESTATE. KOEFFLER v. KOEFFLER ET AL.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

215 Wis. 115

254 N.W. 363

IN RE KOEFFLER'S ESTATE.KOEFFLER

v.KOEFFLER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 3, 1934.

Appeal from an order of the County Court of Milwaukee County; F. W. Bucklin, Judge presiding.

In the matter of the estate of Charles A. Koeffler, Jr., deceased. From an order denying the petition of Rose Loughran Koeffler, widow, to declare an antenuptial agreement void and to assign to petitioner such share of the estate as she would take under the law, petitioner, opposed by Carl C. Koeffler and another, appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]

Affirmed.

Rose Loughran Koeffler, the petitioner and appellant, seeks to have a certain antenuptial agreement entered into by her with Charles A. Koeffler, Jr., deceased, declared null and void, and to have assigned to her as his widow that share of his estate to which she would be entitled if permitted to elect to take under the law. After the death of Charles A. Koeffler, Jr., which occurred on September 5, 1930, the petitioner duly filed her election to take under the law, and also petitioned the court to declare null and void the antenuptial agreement theretofore entered into. From an order entered August 4, 1933, denying the petitioner's prayers to declare the antenuptial agreement void and to assign to her such share of the estate as she would take under the law, the petitioner appealed.Poss, Toelle & Schuler, of Milwaukee (Benjamin Poss and H. W. Schuler, both of Milwaukee, of counsel), for appellant.

Bender, Trump, McIntyre & Freeman and Frank J. Lenicheck, all of Milwaukee, for respondents.

NELSON, Justice.

In order that the controverted questions may be understood, it is necessary that the material facts be stated fully.

Charles A. Koeffler, Jr., hereafter called the deceased, was born in 1856. He was graduated from the law school of the University of Wisconsin in 1880 and at once began to practice law in the city of Milwaukee. He practiced his profession until 1920, specializing in probate and real estate law. His practice was extensive and he was recognized as a very thorough and able lawyer. His reputation for honesty and integrity was very high. At the age of 42 he married his first wife, who died in 1901. Carl A. Koeffler, a son and one of the respondents, was born in 1900. As time went by the deceased acquired large real estate holdings and other investments. After 1920, when he retired from active practice, he devoted his time to the management of his properties and investments and to “Met-To-Wee,” his country place, where he lived a simple, unostentatious life finding joy and pleasure in raising chickens and live stock and in growing flowers, shrubs, and vegetables.

The petitioner was born in Ireland in 1886 and was therefore 30 years younger than the deceased. She came to the United States in 1909. Two of her sisters and three of her brothers had preceded her in coming to this country. She was well educated, having specialized in French, and studied music since childhood. In 1911, at the age of 25, she entered the household of the deceased as a governess or tutor to Carl, who was then about 11 years of age. Her duties consisted of taking Carl to school, helping him with his lessons, reading to him, and playing with him. It was arranged that during her free time she might give private lessons in French. As time went on and Carl grew older her duties became less exacting. Commencing about 1916 and continuing down to the time of her marriage in 1923, she devoted a part of each school day to teaching French in Miss Treat's school and later on in the Lake School. Prior to 1921, when her mother died, she contributed to the latter's support. Up to the time of her marriage she had managed to save but little. When she first entered the household of the deceased her wages were $25 a month. In 1923, prior to her marriage, she was paid $75 a month by the deceased, and received for each month that she taught school the sum of $125. She had no particular knowledge of business affairs and had no business experience.

Met-To-Wee, hereinbefore mentioned, was, at the time of her marriage, the homestead of the deceased. It included about ten acres upon which the residence stood and other farm lands across the highway. The residence was old and the front part of it had formerly been a farmhouse. During the years that the petitioner resided there comparatively few improvements had been made to the house. The home, though comfortable, was not modern and its furnishings and equipment were comparatively simple and nonluxurious. Considerable evidence was adduced to show the simple, unostentatious standard of life lived at Met-To-Wee.

In 1922, the petitioner went to France to visit the grave of a deceased brother who died while serving in the World War and to further pursue her studies in French. Upon returning to Met-To-Wee it became known that she had met a young man in France whom she liked very much. The deceased learned of this attachment and became greatly depressed over the situation and apparently felt that life at Met-To-Wee would not be liveable without her. He proposed that they intermarry, but the petitioner did not readily yield to his entreaties. As a consequence the deceased became ill, remained in bed for a week, during which time he manifested real grief, and continually urged the petitioner to marry him. The petitioner finally yielded. The evidence relating to the engagement and to its terms and conditions is meager due to the fact that the petitioner was not permitted to relate the conversations had with the deceased. It does appear, however, that before the petitioner agreed to marry the deceased she told him that while she had affection for him she did not love him. On February 28, 1923, the petitioner and the deceased entered into an antenuptial agreement, the first paragraph of which is as follows: “Witnesseth: That, whereas said parties have agreed to intermarry upon the understanding and condition, that an agreement should be entered into between them, prior to their marriage, by which said Rose Loughran should agree and consent to accept and receive out of the estate of said Charles A. Koeffler, Jr., if she should survive him, a certain provision to be agreed upon by them before their marriage, as and for and in lieu of any and all her rights, title, interest, claims and demands of whatsoever kind, either of homestead, dower, inheritance, distribution or otherwise in his estate, or, in any property he might leave and should release, relinquish, waive and quitclaim any and all of her rights, title, interest, claims and demands in and to any part of his estate in consideration thereof; and whereas the parties have agreed on said provision so to be made for said Rose Loughran, she being in all respects fully and completely satisfied with the provisions so agreed upon by them to be made and hereinafter made for her and to be carried out for her use and benefit after the death of said Charles A. Koeffler, Jr., after her marriage to him.”

The agreement provided, in substance, that the petitioner should be paid the sum of $25,000 in cash by his executors or administrator; that, pending the settlement of his estate, she should have an allowance of $2,500 per annum payable quarter annually, if practicable; that she should have an annuity of $2,500 per annum payable quarterly for her maintenance and support during her widowhood; that she should have, during the term of her widowhood, together with Carl, the right to use, occupy, and enjoy the home, free from expense either of taxes, insurance, upkeep, expenses for labor, wages, and the like, so long as she and Carl, or he and his family, if he have any, shall jointly occupy said home; that during her widowhood she should have the right, together with Carl, to use, occupy, and enjoy the island and garage property at Eagle Springs Lake located in Waukesha county, free from expense of taxes, etc.; that she should have for her sole and separate property all of the household goods, wares, furniture, and commodities, with but few exceptions, contained in the home or in the cottage at Eagle Springs Lake, and also one of his automobiles to be selected by her at the time of his death; that she should be paid by his executors for each and every year that the parties lived together as husband and wife the further sum of $1,000 and a pro rata amount for part of any year; that she accepted the provisions made for her in lieu of all other rights and that she was in all respects satisfied with such provisions and released all her rights to his estate; that in order to fully insure to the petitioner the full and complete benefit and enjoyment of the provisions made for her and to avoid possible loss thereof, or part thereof, a trust should be created in her favor; that if, for any reason, she and Carl could not agree, or if it was not agreeable to them to enjoy, occupy, or use the home and the cottage at Eagle Springs Lake together, Carl, at his election, should have the sole use and enjoyment thereof, in which event there should be added, to the annuity of $2,500, the sum of $1,000 to defray the cost of her living elsewhere; that if the deceased should die testate, having made provision for her in lieu of the provisions made in the agreement, then the petitioner might, within one year after the filing of a petition for the probate of his will, elect to take under the agreement or under the will, but not under both.

The agreement was in duplicate and written in the longhand of the deceased. One of the duplicate copies was delivered to the petitioner a day or two before it was signed and executed. The contract was executed in duplicate in the presence of an attorney and another witness. The marriage did not take place until June 11, 1923, over three months after the contract was signed. Two of the petitioner's sisters resided in Milwaukee, of whom one was married and the other held a highly...