Ruble v. Ruble
| Decision Date | 13 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 32506.,32506. |
| Citation | 619 S.E.2d 226 |
| Parties | Albert E. RUBLE, Administrator C.T.A. of the Estate of Mary Alverta Green, Petitioner Below, Appellee v. Albert E. RUBLE, Betty Ruble, Jacob Mullett, Jeremy Potter, Mark Cappillini, Brenda Cappillini, Steven Brannon, Christine Brannon, Robert Declerico, and Philip Richel c/o Herod Funeral Home, Maude Copeland, Donald Copeland, Kathryn Evans, Betty Lou Green, James Green, Mary M. Bishop, Raymond Abernathy, Mary Margaret Sullivan, Martha Lancaster, Inez Deeley, and All Unknown Heirs of the Estate of Mary Alverta Green, Respondent Below, Appellants. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
William L. Pennington, Morgantown, for Appellee.
James W. Courrier, Jr., Keyser, for Appellants.
This case is before this Court upon appeal of a final order of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County entered May 7, 2004. In that order, the circuit court held that the residuary clause of a holographic will1 was valid and that the residue of the decedent's estate was to be distributed to the appellees and petitioners below, Albert and Betty Ruble (hereinafter "the Rubles"), in accordance with the terms of the holographic will.2 The appellants and respondents below, Donald Copeland and Maude Copeland (hereinafter, "the Copelands"), appeal the order believing that the circuit court erred in denying their motion for a proper expert handwriting analysis of the decedent's will. After reviewing the facts of the case, the issues presented, and the relevant statutory and case law, this Court reverses the decision of the circuit court.
On September 15, 1999, Mary Alverta Green died in Monongalia County, West Virginia. On October 18, 1999, Albert E. Ruble was appointed Administrator C.T.A. of the estate of Ms. Green. On that same day, Mr. Ruble recorded Ms. Green's September 24 1994, will in the Office of the Clerk of the County Commission of Monongalia County. Submitted with the will were the affidavits of two witnesses, Jerri S. Walls and Susan M. Johnson, verifying that they were acquainted with Ms. Green during her lifetime and were familiar with her handwriting and signature and that they believed the handwriting and signature on the holographic will was that of Ms. Green. Mr. Ruble and his wife Betty Ruble were also listed as potential beneficiaries with regard to a residuary clause contained in the final paragraph of the will.
On November 16, 2000, Mr. Ruble filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment asking the circuit court to answer several questions regarding the validity and interpretation of the holographic will. Following a January 19, 2001, hearing, the circuit court entered an order on February 2, 2001, holding that the specific bequests set forth in the holographic will of Ms. Green were valid and immediately payable. Those specific bequests included: $5,000.00 for Jacob Mullett "for personal services during illness;" $5,000.00 to the Herod Funeral Home in Pt. Marion, Pennsylvania, for funeral expenses; and $500.00 each to the decedent's "caring neighbors," Mark Cappellini, Brenda Cappellini, Steve Brannon, Christine Brannon, Jeremy Potter, and Robert DeClerico. Those specific bequests are not the subject of this appeal.
Within that same order, the circuit court ordered Mr. Ruble to serve all ascertainable descendants of Ms. Green, thereby giving them notice of the pending action and giving them an opportunity to take part in a hearing to determine the validity of the residuary clause of Ms. Green's holographic will. On February 2, 2001, an Amended Petition for Declaratory Judgment was filed incorporating the circuit court's ruling and mailed to all ascertainable heirs. On March 8, 2001, a hearing was held to address the validity of the residuary clause.
The issue in question surrounds the last paragraph of Ms. Green's will which provides:
I appoint the Huntington Bank as my administrator to hold monies not designated in a trust fund to pay all bills at 527 Martin for the heirs. Also in case of dire need they be alloted (sic) withdrawals as deemed nec. by the Adm.
Written under this paragraph with an arrow clearly connected to the word "heirs" in the above paragraph is the following designation: "Albert & Betty Ruble, 617 Elmina St. Morgantown." The issue before the circuit court was whether the above-quoted paragraph, combined with the designation of the Rubles, was sufficient to dispose of the residue of the estate and, if so, who was to receive the residue.
Maude Copeland and Donald Copeland, cousins of Ms. Green, argued that they along with several other heirs, should have been determined to be the proper distributees of the residue of Ms. Green's estate and therefore should have received such apportionments in accordance with the State's distribution statute. On May 7, 2004, however, the circuit court ruled that the residuary clause in the will was valid as to the Rubles and ordered that the residue of Ms. Green's estate be accordingly distributed to the Rubles. In doing so, the circuit court denied the Copelands' motion for a handwriting analysis by a handwriting expert of Ms. Green's will. The circuit court found that at the time of Ms. Green's death she was not close to any of her extended family, but that she had a close and warm relationship with her neighbors and friends, the Rubles, who provided her with care and companionship. This appeal followed.
Since the lower court's ruling was a declaratory judgment regarding the construction of the residuary clause of Ms. Green's will, our review is governed by this Court's holding in Syllabus Point 3 of Cox v. Amick, 195 W.Va. 608, 466 S.E.2d 459 (1995), wherein we held: "A circuit court's entry of a declaratory judgment is reviewed de novo." We proceed to review this matter to determine whether the lower court erred in its ruling regarding Ms. Green's 1994 will.
We begin our review in this appeal with the Copelands' argument that the requirements of establishing a holographic will were not met in full in this case because the modified portion of Ms. Green's will was not sufficiently proven to have been in her own handwriting. The Copelands, however, do not dispute that holographic wills are permitted under West Virginia law as long as they are in compliance with the requirements of West Virginia Code § 41-1-3 (1923).3 Moreover, Syllabus Point 3, Stevens v. Casdorph, 203 W.Va. 450, 508 S.E.2d 610 (1998).
The Copelands also agree with the Rubles that it is clear Ms. Green intended to change portions of her one page will by scratching through nine lines located in the middle portion of the will, which was followed by the notation, The Copelands, however, point out that there is no such notation of a correction, a date, or Ms. Green's signature or initials, on the section of the will in question where she drew an arrow connecting the Rubles' names to the residuary clause. The Copelands argue that the Rubles were not mentioned anywhere else in the will and clearly are not Ms. Green's statutory heirs. They assert that had Ms. Green intended to leave the balance of her estate to someone other than her natural heirs, she would have specified such in the same manner as she did with the eight specifically named beneficiaries whose bequests were previously ordered to be paid by the circuit court.
The Copelands believe this issue could have been resolved by a handwriting analysis conducted by a handwriting expert which was precluded by the circuit court. They assert that their motion was denied without explanation other than the circuit court's cursory conclusion that such analysis was not necessary because "the handwriting is wholly that of the deceased." They further believe a handwriting analysis was a reasonable request that would have provided the evidence necessary to make a full and informed ruling on the issue of the added notation surrounding Ms. Green's residuary clause.
Conversely, the Rubles contend that the Copelands' argument is presented completely out of context. They say that the action in the Circuit Court of Monongalia County was not a will contest. Instead, it was a declaratory judgment action requested by Attorney Raymond Frere as counsel for Albert E. Ruble in his capacity as the administrator of Ms. Green's estate. Mr. Ruble states that he remained neutral in that action and did not advocate for any particular interpretation of the holographic will. Moreover, the Rubles assert that the circuit court's order reflects an exhaustive analysis of the holographic will including consideration of the legal principles governing the validity and interpretation of holographic wills in the State of West Virginia.
The Rubles also maintain that the circuit court correctly denied the Copelands' motion for a handwriting analysis of Ms. Green's will. The Rubles say the Copelands only dispute the one line at the bottom of the will and admit that the remainder of the will was written by Ms. Green. Thus, the Rubles contend that the circuit judge, sitting as the trier of fact, obviously looked at the disputed line of handwriting, made his own comparison, and made an appropriate final determination of fact himself that the handwriting was that of Ms. Green.
After fully reviewing the evidence, we believe that the circuit court erred in denying the Copelands' request for an expert handwriting analysis. Clearly, as we stated in Syllabus Point 8 of In re Estate of Teubert, 171 W.Va. 226, 298 S.E.2d 456 (1982), "[t]he law favors testacy over intestacy." Likewise, we have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Parker, 18-0156
...West Virginia law as long as they are in compliance with the requirements of West Virginia Code § 41-1-3 (1923)." Ruble v Ruble, 217 W.Va. 713, 717, 619 S.E.2d 226, 230 (2005). "W.Va. Code, 41-1-3, provides that holographic wills are valid in this State if they are wholly in the handwriting......