Pepin v. Ryan.

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.
• Citation: Pepin v. Ryan., 133 Conn. 12, 47 A.2d 846 (Conn. 1946)
• Decision Date: 15 May 1946
• Parties: PEPIN et al. v. RYAN.

133 Conn. 12

47 A.2d 846

PEPIN et al.

v.RYAN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 15, 1946.

Appeal from Superior Court, Windham County; Murphy, Judge.

Appeal by Henry Pepin and others from a decree of the probate court admitting to probate the last will and testament of Mary Lefebvre, deceased. From a judgment of the superior court sustaining the appeal and setting aside the decree of the probate court, Mabel D. Ryan, executrix, appeals.

Error in part, judgment set aside and case remanded with direction.

Samuel B. Harvey, of Willimantic, for appellant.

William P. Barber, of Putnam, for appellees.

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.

BROWN, Judge.

Mary Lefebvre of Putnam died on January 2, 1945, leaving an instrument dated June 15, 1944, which on January 22, 1945, was admitted to probate as her last will and testament. From this decree the plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by Mrs. Mabel D. Ryan, who was conservatrix of the person and property of the deceased from March 23, 1944, until her death. The court rendered judgment sustaining the appeal and setting aside the will, and Mrs. Ryan, who was the chief beneficiary and executrix named in it, has appealed. We refer to her as the defendant.

The testatrix, a widow without children, died at the age of seventy-eight years leaving as her only heirs at law and next of kin three nephews and two nieces, two of whom are the plaintiffs. On October 14, 1943, pursuant to the application of the selectmen, the Probate Court of Putnam, on the ground of incapacity by reason of physical infirmities to manage her own affairs, appointed a conservator to take charge of her person and her property, which then amounted to approximately $3,000. The conservator resigned. The defendant, who had first become acquainted with Mrs. Lefebvre in February, 1944, signed an application for appointment as conservatrix in his place, and she was so appointed on March 23, 1944. From that date the testatrix boarded at the home of her nephew Henry Pepin, one of the plaintiffs, until May 30, 1944, when it became necessary for her to leave because of his inability to get sufficient help in the house. Except for this period, she lived in various institutions and private homes from the early fall of 1943 until the time of her death.

By the will in question, executed on June 15, 1944, the testatrix, who previously had executed two wills, revoked ‘all former wills,’ named the defendant executrix, and, after providing $50 for masses for the repose of her soul, left all of the rest and residue of her property to the defendant. The testatrix had possession of the will until her death. The defendant was not present when the will was made or executed but was subsequently informed of it. The defendant, who was in the insurance business in Putnam, did not visit the testatrix while she was living at Henry Pepin's, but during the spring of 1944 the testatrix went many times to her office, generally for the purpose of getting money. Between May 30 and June 15, 1944, the defendant took the testatrix in her car to purchase clothing, and on June 15, after the execution of the will, took her to a hospital, where, during the testatrix' stay of a week, she at times visited her twice a day and brought her ice cream and fruit. During the ensuing two months the defendant took her riding in her car and gave her ice cream and fruit, and between August 16, 1944, and the testatrix' death on January 2, 1945, the defendant visited her thirteen times. During her term as conservatrix the defendant disbursed a total of $919.10, which included $134.23 retained by her as her fee, plus $98.10 for expenses.

The above facts are established by the court's finding and stand unchallenged. The court concluded as follows: The nephews and nieces of the testatrix were the natural objects of her bounty; the defendant stood in a peculiar relationship of trust to the testatrix at the time the will was executed, as she was conservatrix of an elderly person who was incapable by reason of physical infirmities of managing her own affairs; and the defendant failed to sustain the burden of overcoming the resulting presumption of undue influence. It is the defendant's claim that she did fully sustain the burden of proof overcoming this presumption. This presents the question decisive of this appeal.

Ordinarily, the burden of proving undue influence rests upon him who seeks to have a will set aside on this ground, but ‘where the natural object of the testator's bounty is excluded from participation in his estate, where a stranger supplants children, and the will is in favor of * * * the guardian having charge of his person and estate * * * there is imposed upon the proponents of the will, upon the trial of the issue as thus raised, the obligation of disproving by a clear preponderance of evidence the affirmation of the actual exercise of undue influence by such beneficiaries of the will. St. Leger's Appeal, 34 Conn. 434, 450, 91 Am.Dec. 735; Dale's Appeal, 57 Conn. 127, 143, 17 A. 757.’ Lockwood v. Lockwood, 80 Conn. 513, 522, 69 A. 8, 11. Justification for this exception ‘is to be found in a rule of policy which seeks to prevent the unseemly sight of a stranger occupying such a delicate fiduciary relation-advising a...