Matthews v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 May 1964
• Docket Number: No. 40470,40470
• Citation: 392 P.2d 369
• Parties: Alice W. MATTHEWS, Plaintiff in Error, v. ACACIA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Lynn A. Matthews, Executrix of the Estate of Joseph McKay Matthews, Jr., Deceased, and Mary Alice Lankford, Defendants in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 369

392 P.2d 369

1964 OK 106

Alice W. MATTHEWS, Plaintiff in Error, v. ACACIA MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Lynn A Matthews, Executrix of the Estate of Joseph McKay Matthews, Jr., Deceased, and Mary Alice Lankford, Defendants in Error.

No. 40470.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

May 12, 1964.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In an equitable action the Supreme Court will examine the entire record and weigh the evidence but will not reverse the trial court unless the judgment is clearly against the weight of the evidence.

2. A decree for specific performance of an oral contract will not be granted unless the evidence of the making of the contract is clear, cogent and convincing, and unless its terms, the consideration on which it was founded, and the time of its execution are clearly established, so as to leave no reasonable doubt as to its terms and character.

3. Where it is sought to show that a certain contract is void because one of the parties thereto was incompetent to enter into contractual relations of any kind, the test of the capacity to make a contract is whether the party had the ability to comprehend in a reasonable manner the nature and effect of the act in which he engaged and the business he transacted.

4. The decree of the trial court that plaintiff seeking to cancel a change of beneficiaries in an insurance policy for lack of mental capacity on the part of the maker, failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the maker of the instrument was mentally incompetent at the time the instrument was executed, will not be disturbed on appeal unless the same is clearly against the weight of the evidence.

5. Refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial on the ground of 'newly discovered evidence' is not cause for reversal unless it appears that such newly discovered evidence is such as would probably change the result of the action.

Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Wm. L. Fogg, Judge.

Suit by Alice M. Matthews against Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Company, Joseph McKay Matthews, Jr., and Mary Alice Lankford, as defendants, to establish her ownership of funds due on two contracts between Acacia and plaintiff's deceased husband, Joseph M. Matthews. Trial court rendered judgment against plaintiff and adjudged the individual defendants to be the owner of all benefits under the contracts.

Paul G. Darrough, Paul G. Darrough, Jr., Rex K. Travis, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Kerr, Conn & Davis, by Wm. Walter Hentz, Oklahoma City, for defendants in error, Lynn A. Matthews, Ex'x of the Estate of Joseph McKay Matthews, Jr., Decd., and Mary Alice Lankford.

DAVISON, Justice.

The parties occupy the same relative positions in this court as they did in the lower court and will be referred to by name or as plaintiff and defendants.

Plaintiff, Alice M. Matthews, instituted this action in the lower court against Acacia Mutual Life Insurance Company, Joseph McKay Matthews, Jr., and Mary Alice Lankford, as defendants, to establish her ownership of funds due on two contracts between Acacia and plaintiff's deceased husband, Joseph M. Matthews. The contracts were created in 1938, when plaintiff's husband became an agent for Acacia, and provided for accumulation of death and retirement benefits during his employment by Acacia, which terminated with his death on June 24, 1961. Plaintiff was originally named as primary beneficiary therein and continued as such until March 7, 1961, when, at the request of her husband, and with approval of Acacia, on March 16, 1961, the above named individual defendants (only children of plaintiff and her husband) were named as primary beneficiaries of such benefits. The accrued benefits amount to approximately $14,000.

Plaintiff's suit is in the nature of an action for specific performance of an oral contract allegedly made with her husband in 1947, whereby the survivor would succeed to and own all property and insurance benefits, including the above contracts, acquired during their married life. Plaintiff also alleged that her husband was mentally incompetent on the date of the change of beneficiary on March 7, 1961, because of a brain tumor that caused his death on June 24, 1961. The defendant, Acacia, admitted the contract with plaintiff's husband, and alleged it was a stakeholder, without knowledge of the merits of plaintiff's claim.

At the close of all the evidence the trial court rendered judgment against plaintiff and adjudged the individual defendants to be the owners of all benefits under the contracts with Acacia. Two weeks after rendition of the judgment the defendant, Joseph McKay Matthews, Jr., died and the matter was revived in the name of his wife, Lynn A. Matthews, as executrix of his estate. The judgment was a general judgment with no findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Plaintiff contends the judgment is clearly against the weight of the evidence and is not supported by the evidence.

We will first consider the proposition of whether plaintiff and her husband entered into the above described oral agreement. Plaintiff's husband will hereafter be referred to by that term or as Mr. Matthews. The testimony of plaintiff is the only evidence directly supporting her claim that such oral agreement was made. A narration of circumstances will aid in determining the existence or non-existence of the contract. Plaintiff and Mr. Matthews were married in 1920. He was 67 when he died in June, 1961. They bought a home in 1924 and it appears they acquired no other home. Plaintiff began working in 1937 and, according to her, their respective earnings continued to be about equal, but Mr. Matthews had the additional expense of promoting his insurance sales. Plaintiff testified they had financial problems until some time prior to 1947. Mr. Matthews became an active participant in amateur photography and according to plaintiff, 'crazy about fishing.' In the spring of 1947, Mr. Matthews wanted to buy an undivided interest in some property near Paden, Oklahoma, on which a lake was located. Plaintiff was strongly opposed to such purchase. Plaintiff testified as to the agreement then made as follows:

'I thought about it and finally I said, 'Well, we never would get anything out of it. It would be just a dead expense over there,' and we talked about it and finally we came to the--we talked it all over and he said, 'Well, now, we will buy it in each other's names, we will buy it in joint tenancy, so if anything happens, it will be yours,' and he said, 'You know my insurance is made to you--''

The purchase price was $4250 and title was taken in the name of plaintiff and Mr. Matthews as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Plaintiff stated they went to the property practically every weekend and on holidays and vacations, and fished and camped out. Later they erected a one-room cabin. The title to their home was in the name of Mr. Matthews and in May, 1948, it was changed to a joint tenancy in their names. In 1954 plaintiff bought a lot in what was described as the Lake Aluma Club tract and paid for it in installments. Title was acquired in 1959 and was taken by them as joint tenants. Plaintiff testified that in her United States government employee's insurance she named Mr. Matthews as beneficiary.

Plaintiff's petition, evidence and briefs present the proposition of a contract on the part of Mr. Matthews to convey or in effect to devise...