Patterson v. Halterman, 12238
| Decision Date | 24 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 12238,12238 |
| Citation | 30 St.Rep. 139,505 P.2d 905,161 Mont. 278 |
| Parties | John F. PATTERSON, Jr., Special Administrator of the Estate of Clara M. Modlin, Deceased, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Anna K. HALTERMAN and the First National Bank of Missoula, Montana, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Worden, Thane, Haines & Williams, Missoula, Shelton C. Williams argued, Missoula, for defendants and appellants.
Mulroney, Delaney & Dalby, Missoula, Dexter L. Delaney, argued, Missoula, Boone, Karlberg & Haddon, Missoula, for plaintiff and respondent.
This action was commenced in the district court of Missoula County by John F. Patterson, Jr., a practicing attorney, acting in his own behalf in his capacity as special administrator of the estate of Clara M. Modlin, deceased. The suit joined Anna K. Halterman and the First National Bank of Missoula as parties defendant. However, the status of the bank was that of a stakeholder with no interest in the outcome and it did not participate in the trial. The trial court, sitting without a jury, entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment for the plaintiff, which held that defendant Anna K. Halterman had no claim in a particular savings account and a cate of deposit to the estate. From the First National Bank of Missoula to pay over the savings account and certificate of deposit of the estate. From the judgment, the court's denial of her motion to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and her motion for a new trial, Mrs. Halterman appeals.
Undisputed facts appearing in the record are that Clara Modlin died on October 26, 1968, at the age of 88 years. On March 22, 1968, about seven months prior to her death, Mrs. Halterman was named as joint tenant with Clara Modlin in a savings account with a balance at that time of approximately $1,065.89 and in a certificate of deposit with a balance at that time of approximately $5,523.62, both of which were and are held by the First National Bank of Missoula.
About three years prior to her death, Clara Modlin executed a will which was admitted to probate and under which John F. Patterson, Jr., was appointed special administrator. Mrs. Halterman, a niece of Clara Modlin, was not a beneficiary under the will. The will divided the entire estate between Mr. Glen Boyer, husband of a predeceased daughter, and two granddaughters, children of Glen Boyer.
Plaintiff testified he had assisted Clara Modlin in two transactions concerning her property. On August 18, 1967, he drew a deed which created a joint tenancy of Clara Modlin and Glen Boyer in her home, worth about $14,000. On April 7, 1968, he helped her complete a change of beneficiary form which designated Glen Boyer beneficiary of two life insurance policies owned by Clara Modlin, amounting to about $500.
During the two year period preceding her death, Clara Modlin was in a state of declining health. She resided at her home as long as she was able then entered St. Patrick's Hospital in Missoula. She later spent ten months to a year in the Hillside Manor Nursing Home in Missoula, and was finally again admitted to St. Patrick's Hospital, where she died.
Mrs. Halterman testified that the joint tenancy transaction of March 22, 1968 between her and Clara Modlin was not made pursuant to any preexisting debt or any express or implied contract for services rendered or goods delivered.
The disputed facts, which are the crux of the lawsuit and appeal, concern (1) whether on March 22, 1968, Clara Modlin had the mental capacity to comprehend the nature of the transaction entering Mrs. Halterman's name on the two bank accounts as joint tenant; (2) whether Clara Modlin was capable of and formed an intention to make a gift to Mrs. Halterman, and (3) whether Mrs. Halterman had exerted undue influence on Clara Modlin.
Two assignments of error involve questions of law: (a) whether the plaintiff's original complaint stated a claim entitling him to relief; and (b) whether the trial judge erred in excluding certain evidence offered by defendant. The remaining assignments of error relate to the three issues of fact.
Considering first the law issues, we find that the cases cited by defendant in support of her motion to dismiss the original complaint predate the adoption of the rules of civil procedure in effect at the time the complaint was filed. The original complaint was no model of draftsmanship, but it does not invoke any serious due process question of lack of notice to defendants. The complaint was amended to conform to the proof at trial.
The excluded evidence which defendant assigns as error concerns statements made by Clara Modlin to Mrs. Halterman and a Mrs. Stevenson, as to Clara Modlin's attitude toward her granddaughters and her intention regarding the disposition of her property. We find the trial judge acted within his discretion in excluding the offered testimony on various grounds. The proposed testimony of both witnesses falls squarely under the hearsay rule stated in section 93-401-2, R.C.M.1947. The proposed testimony of Mrs. Halterman falls squarely under the dead man statute section 93-701-3, R.C.M.1947. The proposed testimony had questionable probative value, in light of the preceding evidence concerning Clara Modlin's senility at the time the statements were made.
Considering now the fact issues, we find the transaction which placed Mrs. Halterman's name on the two bank deposits to be valid and binding must meet the legal requirements of a gift inter vivos. Section 67-1706, R.C.M.1947, states:
'A gift is a transfer of personal property, made voluntarily, and without consideration.'
In In re Brown's Estate, 122 Mont. 451, 455, 206 P.2d 816, 819, this Court stated:
'To constitute a gift of a chattel there must be (1) an intention on the part of the donor to make the gift; (2) delivery by the donor of the subject matter of the gift, and (3) acceptance of the gift by the donee.'
See also: State Board of Equalization v. Cole, 122 Mont. 9, 195 P.2d 989; Fender v. Foust, 82 Mont. 73, 265 P. 15.
It is requirement (1) from Brown which is determinative here. If by reason of old age inducing senility, illness inducing incompetence, undue influence, or a combination of these factors, Clara Modlin did not have a rational, independent intention to make a gift, i. e., the requisite donative intent, there was no gift.
38 C.J.S. Gifts §§ 13, 34, explain the requirement in more detail:
§ 13 in pertinent part states: 'It is essential to the validity of a gift that the donor shall have sufficient mental capacity to make a gift; a gift by a donor mentally incompetent is void.'
§ 34 in pertinent part states: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
University of Montana v. Coe
...of Sinclair (Mont.1982), 640 P.2d 918, 39 St.Rep. 331; Casagranda v. Donahue (1978), 178 Mont. 479, 585 P.2d 1286; Patterson v. Halterman (1973), 161 Mont. 278, 505 P.2d 905; State Board of Equalization v. Cole (1948), 122 Mont. 9, 195 P.2d 989; In Re Sullivan's Estate (1941), 112 Mont. 519......
-
Guardianship of Mowrer, In re
... ... Patterson who instructs an ethics course at the University of Montana School of Law. Professor Patterson, ... Patterson v. Halterman (1973), 161 Mont. 278, 283, 505 P.2d 905, 908 (citing 38 C.J.S. Gifts §§ 13, 34, now 38A C.J.S ... ...
-
Cameron v. Cameron
...by the same criteria used in deciding whether undue influence was exercised on a testator making a Will. Patterson v. Halterman (1973), 161 Mont. 278, 505 P.2d 905, 909. Those criteria were set out in Estate of Maricich (1965), 145 Mont. 146, 400 P.2d 873, 881, and most recently affirmed in......
-
State v. Fetters, 12675
...on two occasions. In both instances, and with different judges ruling, the evidence was ordered suppressed. In Patterson v. Halterman, Mont., 505 P.2d 905, 30 St.Rep. 139, 144, this Court stated the rule of appeal and 'In Stromberg v. Seaton Ranch Co., Mont., 502 P.2d 41, 48, 29 St.Rep. 848......