Needels v. Roberts, WD
| Decision Date | 05 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 879 S.W.2d 550 |
| Parties | Jeffrey T. NEEDELS and Debra Lyn Piatt, Respondents, v. Michael ROBERTS, Appellant. 48012. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Timothy J. Murphy, Kansas City, for appellant.
Philip F. Cardarella, Kansas City, for respondents.
Before ULRICH, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SPINDEN, JJ.
This appeal arises out of a will contest in which a testator's children challenge a will giving all of the testator's estate to his step-son. A jury decided that the testator's wife had unduly influenced the testator with threats of divorce to disinherit his children and to leave all of his estate to her son, Michael Roberts. Roberts appeals, but we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Jeffrey T. Needels and Debra Lyn Piatt contest the will of their father, Orval T. Needels, Jr., as being unduly influenced by their father's second wife. Their father was married to the childrens' mother, Roseanne Mapes, 1 for 20 years before the couple divorced in 1979.
Orval Needels was overwrought about the divorce. Briefly before Mapes filed for divorce, he attempted suicide. About a year after the divorce, he attempted suicide again. Mapes testified at trial that the reason for both attempts was his "fear of divorce." She and the children testified that Orval Needels continued to show concern for them after the divorce.
In 1982, Orval Needels married Wanda Roberts, a long-time customer of Orval Needels' veterinary services and a family friend. His second wife was aware of his first suicide attempt and of his mental state during his divorce of Mapes. About a year after remarrying, Orval Needels executed a new will. Although he often consulted with lawyers about business affairs, he apparently drew up the new will without lawyer assistance. The will bequeathed all of his property to Wanda Roberts Needels and made her the executrix of his estate. It provided that if she died before he did, her son Michael Roberts was to receive all of his property and would serve as his estate's executor. The will said, "Having my children, Jeffrey T. Needels and Debra Lyn Needels in mind I make no provision for them in this my Last Will."
In 1984, Orval Needels expanded his veterinary clinic to include pet grooming and the sale of pet supplies. Wanda Needels managed this part of the business until she was diagnosed as suffering terminal cancer. She relinquished management of the grooming and supply business to her son in 1989. Michael Roberts was still managing the business at the time of trial.
Jeffrey Needels began working at the veterinary clinic in July 1989. His father announced to a partner in the veterinary practice and to other employees that Jeffrey Needels would be an office worker. Orval Needels intended for his son to become office manager eventually, but that did not occur. Jeffrey Needels quit working in the clinic in early 1990 after disputes erupted with other employees.
Jeffrey Needels testified that his father was concerned that Michael Roberts was not reporting all of the pet supply business proceeds. He said that he and his father discovered a 10 percent discrepancy between receipts and the business records and that his father asked him to have an attorney request an accounting by Michael Roberts. He identified a letter dated October 18, 1989, as the letter sent by the attorney to Michael Roberts, but the letter said nothing about a discrepancy. It said that Orval Needels and his partner wanted "to formalize the relationship" with the business Roberts managed. The letter suggested that either space in the clinic be leased to Roberts or that the business be sold to him. Jeffrey Needels said that, after Roberts received the letter, Roberts confronted him and said, as he grabbed Needels' arm,
On June 25, 1990, while his wife was near death, Orval Needels went to the office of his attorney, Sam Zollicker, to discuss his will. During the meeting Zollicker prepared a memorandum of their discussion. The memo indicated that Needels wanted to change his will so that all his property went to his children, except for property at 10813 East 40 Highway which he wanted to give to his wife's family. The memorandum indicated that he wanted his residence to go to his children, but "she would want to have it go to her [children]." 2 The attorney asked him to bring legal descriptions of his property so the will could be drafted; he never did.
Wanda Needels died on July 17, 1990. In the same month, Orval Needels was diagnosed as suffering brain cancer. On August 1, 1990, he named his sister, Karoli Montgomery, as his attorney-in-fact to help manage his affairs.
Montgomery discussed her brother's will with him to make certain that he wanted to disinherit his children. She said that he acknowledged that he had prepared the will, that he understood its terms and that he agreed "in general" that it expressed his desires.
On August 25, 1990, Jeffrey Needels and Montgomery told Zollicker that Orval Needels wanted to change his will. At their request, Zollicker called Orval Needels at his hospital room. Orval Needels agreed to discuss the will with Zollicker.
The same day, Zollicker discussed the will with Orval Needels in Needels' hospital room. Needels appeared to be confused. At times, he did not remember that his wife had died. He was aware that the will left all of his estate to Michael Roberts. He told Zollicker that revoking the will would be "chicken shit" and decided against revoking it.
In October 1990, Montgomery asked Zollicker to meet with Orval Needels again. Zollicker declined after doctors told him that Needels was not capable of understanding any legal document. Needels' health did not improve, and he died on September 11, 1991.
Michael Roberts makes four contentions of error: (1) the trial court erred in admitting into evidence his statement to Jeffrey Needels during their confrontation in late 1989; (2) the trial court erred in admitting Zollicker's testimony concerning tentative estate plans; (3) the trial court erroneously denied his motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence because the Needels' evidence was insufficient; and (4) the trial court should have directed a verdict in his favor because the evidence was insufficient to show "that the specific provision [Orval Needels] included in the instrument he executed as his last will and testament, naming the appellant as his contingent beneficiary, was the result of undue influence by ... Wanda Needels."
Roberts complains that the trial court erred in admitting Jeffrey Needels' testimony that Roberts said to him, "Your father is so afraid of divorce that my mother can get him to do anything, all she had to do was say the word 'divorce' and he signed the Will." Roberts complains that the evidence was inadmissible hearsay and had no probative value.
The trial court properly admitted the statement. Contrary to the general rule that admissions by party opponents are admissible, a legatee's out-of-court statement is not admissible in a will contest. Look v. French, 346 Mo. 972, 144 S.W.2d 128, 131 (1940); Kaiser v. Pearl, 670 S.W.2d 915, 920 (Mo.App.1984). An exception is made, however, when only one legatee is involved in a will contest. Kaiser, id. at 920-21 (). Hence, because Roberts was the only legatee, his statements were admissible under the Look exception.
The statement was sufficiently probative to be admissible. 5 FRANCIS M. HANNA AND JOHN A. BORRON, JR., MISSOURI PRACTICE: PROBATE LAW AND PRACTICE § 130 (2d ed. 1988). 3 The statement was probative in determining Orval Needels' mental condition, Wanda Needels power to influence her husband, and her opportunity to do so.
Roberts complains that the trial court erred in admitting Zollicker's testimony concerning Orval Needels' desired disposition of his property as expressed during Needels' meetings with Zollicker. The contestants first offered Zollicker's testimony, but the trial court sustained Roberts' objection on the ground that Needels' desires in 1990 were not relevant to whether undue influence had occurred in 1983. Roberts recalled Zollicker as a witness. During the contestants' cross-examination of him, the trial court overruled Roberts' objection. We concur with the trial court's rulings.
Roberts opened the door to the testimony by recalling Zollicker and eliciting evidence concerning his conversations with Needels. Roberts asked Zollicker about their first meeting on June 25, 1990:
Q. Did you discuss with him his understanding of what the terms of [the August 1983] Will were?
A. Yes, very generally.
Q. Did you make a determination as to whether he had an understanding of the terms generally of the August 1983 Will?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that determination of his understanding?
A. In very general terms, the Will left his property to his spouse if she was living, and then if not, to his step-son.
Roberts then...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruestman v. Ruestman
...the natural objects of a person's bounty are those persons described in the statute on intestate succession.20 Needels v. Roberts, 879 S.W.2d 550, 555 (Mo.App. W.D.1994). "The of a testator, even the second wife, however, is also a natural object of his bounty, and the testator has the righ......
-
Robertson v. Robertson
...or her estate, or a large portion of it, to nonblood heirs and excludes the natural objects of his or her bounty." Needels v. Roberts, 879 S.W.2d 550, 555 (Mo.App. W.D. 1994). The natural objects of a person's bounty, at a minimum, are those persons described in the statute on intestate suc......