Longworth, In re
Citation | 222 A.2d 561 |
Parties | In re Anne C. LONGWORTH et al., Appellants, from Decree of Judge of Probate. |
Decision Date | 02 September 1966 |
Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
David A. Nichols, Camden, for appellants.
Samuel W. Collins, Jr., and John L. Knight, Rockland, for Depositors Trust Co.
Clifford F. O'Rourke, Camden, for Camden Community Hospital and Congregation Church.
Alexander R. Gillmor, Camden, for Camden Public Library.
Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, MARDEN, and RUDMAN, JJ.
This is an appeal by several heirs of the late Suzanne H. Wyatt (hereinafter called the testatrix) from the allowance of an instrument as her last will and testament in the Supreme Court of Probate.
The appellants urge that the Court erred as a matter of law (1) in failing to find that Depositors Trust Company (hereinafter called Trustee or Bank) was guilty of such undue influence 'as will void this will when it failed to urge this testatrix to seek independent legal advice before executing a will by which the residue is left to Depositors Trust Company in trust in perpetuity and from which service as trustee it would benefit,' and (2) 'in failing to find that the purported bequest of residue to Depositors Trust Company was void because two of the subscribing witnesses were officers of Depositors Trust Company, which would benefit thereunder from its service as trustee in perpetuity.'
From the testimony of witnesses and written evidence, the basic facts emerge without dispute.
In the spring of 1962 the testatrix, 92 years of age, sought the advice of officers of the Camden branch of the bank in connection with her securities worth nearly $250,000. Some five years previously she had received a large bequest from her sister which formed the bulk of her estate. After conferences with trust officers of the bank, she adopted their suggestion of a revocable inter vivos trust with after her decease income to certain heirs and two grand nephews for life and the remainder in perpetual trust for charitable purposes.
A bank officer suggested that Samuel Collins, Esq., a Rockland lawyer, represent the testatrix. He arranged a conference with the lawyer and accompanied the testatrix to the law office. Mr. Collins then met the testatrix for the first time. He conferred with her at his office and at her home, reviewed the plans for the trust and her estate, and drafted the revocable trust and the will executed by her on June 6, 1962.
In the words of the Justice below, Mr. Collins 'was the attorney to whom 'a good deal' of the legal work of the bank in the area had been referred.' There is nothing in the record to suggest that Mr. Collins acted for the bank other than, as he so testified, to 'look up titles to real estate and prepare mortgages for that bank from time to time,' and without a retainer. Neither the bank nor Mr. Collins informed the testatrix that he had represented the bank in any way.
In the 'Memorandum of Facts, Law and Decision Thereon' of the Justice below we read:
In their brief below, says the Justice in the Memorandum, the appellants 'disclaim any suggestion of fraud, duress or wrong-doing on the part of the (Bank), or on the part of 'those who guided Mrs. Wyatt (the testatrix) in the execution of these instruments on June 6, 1962 (the trust and will)."
The appellants' contention on their first point comes to this: that the will is void for undue influence exercised by the Bank in not urging the testatrix to consult independent legal counsel.
A corporation seeking business as a corporate fiduciary must of course maintain the strict standards of a trustee. The Bank here thus entered into a confidential relationship with the testatrix in the development and completion of plans for her trust and estate.
The testatrix was entitled to legal advise independent of the Bank. For example, the Bank would have violated its duty as a fiduciary if the trust officers had advised the testatrix in matters of law, in the capacity of independent legal counsel. Such a violation of duty would have been apart and distinct from questions arising from the improper practice of the profession of law by a corporation.
In our view, Mr. Collins was an attorney available under the circumstances to give independent legal advice to the testatrix. There is not evidence that his relationship with the Bank was such that it could have been said that his advice to his client would be influenced thereby. That the Bank recommended Mr. Collins and arranged the first conference with the testatrix did not affect the attorney-client relationship into which they entered. Mr. Collins was the attorney of the testatrix, and not an attorney for the Bank.
Cases cited by the appellants do not reach the precise situation before us. See for example Oswald v. Seidler, 136 N.J.Eq. 443, 42 A.2d 216, and Israel v. Sommer, 292 Mass. 113, 197 N.E. 442. In Oswald supra, the settlor, even if competent mentally, was advised in establishing a nonrevocable trust not by a lawyer of her choice, but by an attorney chosen upon recommendation of an uncle of the beneficiary. The Court said, 42 A.2d at p. 218:
'We think the trust deed was not fair, open, voluntary and well understood by complainant, nor did she have the benefit of adequate, independent advice as required by law.'
In Israel, supra, the Massachusetts Court set aside a settlement made by an attorney in a confidential relationship who gained considerable advantage for himself. The Court pointed out it would have been the plain duty of any attorney to have advised the settlor not to sign. The Court said, 197 N.E. at p. 447:
'But unless it appears that the presumed influence resulting from the relationship has been neutralized, by completely unselfish advice from the attorney, by independent legal advice from another, or in some other manner, the attorney cannot expect his bargain to stand.'
Our Court has in vigorous terms set aside purchases of tort claims and claims left for collection by an attorney. Dunn v. Record, 63...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harmon v. Emerson
...to his present wife.3 This formulation of the clearly erroneous test has been specifically approved by this court. In re Longworth, Me., 222 A.2d 561, 564 (1966). While this version of the rule is correct in a general sense, it gives little specific guidance as to the modalities of analysis......
-
Fenwick's Will, In re
...applicable to review of the findings of the Supreme Court of Probate including findings on the question of undue influence. In re Longworth, Mr., 222 A.2d 561 (1966); Barton v. Beck's Estate, 159 Me. 446, 195 A.2d 63 (1963); In re Dilios' Will, supra.3 See Sheets v. Sheets' Estate, Me., 345......
-
Estate of Tully
...as the trial court to judge the evidence. Boulay v. Boulay, 393 A.2d 1339, 1340 (Me.1978) (Superior Court proceedings); In Re Longworth, 222 A.2d 561, 564 (Me.1966) (Probate Court proceedings); 1 Field, McKusick & Wroth, Maine Civil Practice § 52.8 at 692 (2d ed. 1970). In a 1981 workers' c......
-
Cournoyer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 6884
...Co. v. Chatigny, 103 N.H. 81, 166 A.2d 122 (1960); Gillogly v. New England Transp. Co., 73 R.I. 456, 57 A.2d 411 (1948); In re Longworth, 222 A.2d 561 (Me.1966); Burleigh v. Miller, 209 Md. 57, 120 A.2d 378 (1956); see RSA ch. 269-A (Supp.1973) effective September 1, 1968; 5A C.J.S. Appeal ......