Stibor's Estate, In re

• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: McFADDEN; SHEPARD
• Citation: Stibor's Estate, In re, 525 P.2d 357, 96 Idaho 162 (Idaho 1974)
• Decision Date: 01 August 1974
• Docket Number: No. 11404,11404
• Parties: In the Matter of the ESTATE of Helen G. STIBOR, Deceased. Grant G. STIBOR, Contestant-Respondent, v. Eleanor HARTLEY, Proponent-Appellant.

Page 357

525 P.2d 357

96 Idaho 162

In the Matter of the ESTATE of Helen G. STIBOR, Deceased Grant G. STIBOR, Contestant-Respondent, v. Eleanor HARTLEY, Proponent-Appellant.

No. 11404.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Aug. 1, 1974.

Glenn A. Coughlan, of Coughlan, Imhoff, Christensen & Lynch, Boise, for proponent-appellant.

Jess R. Walters, Jr., of Derr, Derr, Walters & Cantrill, Boise, for constestant-respondent.

McFADDEN, Justice.

This appeal is from an order of the District Court affirming an order of the magistrates division which denied admission to probate of the purported will of Helen G. Stibor who died on June 22, 1971.

Appellant Eleanor Hartley, the decedent's daughter, issue of decedent's first marriage, petitioned the Ada County magistrate's court that the purported last will and testament of her mother be admitted to probate, and that letters testamentary be issued to her. Grant J. Stibor, respondent herein, the surviving husband of the decedent, contested the petition for probate of the will, alleging that on February 4, 1971, the date of execution of the purported will, the decedent did not have the testamentary capacity to execute a valid will, and on the further ground that such purported will was executed by reason of the undue influence experted upon the decedent by the appellant. The respondent also alleged in his contest that certain property mentioned in the purported will as decedent's separate property was in truth and in fact community property of respondent and the decedent.

The magistrate heard the case on the issues framed by the pleadings of the parties. After trial the magistrate entered a memorandum opinion and order refusing to admit the will to probate. The appellant appealed from this memorandum opinion and order to the district court. The district court reviewed the record and affirmed the decision of the magistrate, and this appeal was then perfected.

Appellant's assignments of error are such as to require an examination of the record to determine whether the record sustains the magistrate's decision that the decedent in executing the purported will was acting under undue influence, and whether the decedent had testamentary capacity.

In an appeal from the magistrate division of the district court to the district court, it is contemplated that the district judge hearing the appeal shall evaluate the record as an appellate court, i. e. to determine the factual sufficiency of the record to sustain the judgment or order from which the appeal was taken. I.C. § 1-2213.

The district judge after hearing the appeal entered his order affirming the decision of the magistrate. The district judge in this order while commenting upon the lack of any formal findings of fact and conclusions of law by the magistrate, nonetheless held the magistrate's memorandum opinion sufficed as findings of fact and conclusions of law. It is the conclusion of this court that the district court erred in this regard and that this action must be remanded for further proceedings.

IRCP 52(a) ¹ requires the judge in all actions tried upon the facts without a jury to 'find the facts specially and state separately (his) conclusions of law thereon and direct the entry of the appropriate judgment'. That rule also provides that 'If an opinion or memorandum decision is filed, it will be sufficient if the findings of fact and conclusions of law appear therein'. The reasons for this rule have been stated by the Supreme Court of New Mexico in Mora v. Martinez, 80 N.M. 88, 451 P.2d 992, 993-994 (1969), in the following terms.

'(W)e take note of the fact that, although our Rule 52 differs from the federal rule, nevertheless the reasons for both rules are the same, i. e., as an aid to the appellate court by placing before it the basis of the decision of the trial court; to require care on the part of the trial judge in his consideration and adjudication of the facts; and for the purposes of res judicata and estoppel by judgment. See, 2 B Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure, §§ 1121-1123, and 5 Moore's Federal Practice (2d ed.) § 52.06(1).'

See, 9 Wright and Miller Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2571, p. 679 (1971); Clements v. Clements, 91 Idaho 732, 430 P.2d 98 (1967); Merrill v. Merrill, 83 Idaho 306, 362 P.2d 887 (1961); Lemelson v. Kellogg Co., 440 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. 1971).

Even though IRCP 52(a) recognizes that findings of fact and conclusions of law may be embodied in a memorandum opinion, still both the findings and conclusions must be specially stated if they are to fulfil their designed purpose. This court has held that the absence of findings of fact may be disregarded by the appellate court if the record is so clear that the court does not need their aid for a complete understanding of the issues. Merrill v. Merrill, supra. However, in this case the record is not that clear. The assignments of error are directed to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the magistrate's decision. It cannot be determined upon what facts the magistrate based his decision.

In several instances in his memorandum of this testimony in arriving at the conclusion the testimony of certain witnesses, but without any evaluation of their testimony. From the memorandum opinion it would appear that the magistrate ignored portions of this testimony in arriving at the conclusion he did. This court has repetatedly held that the testimony of a witness which is not inherently improbable and is not contradicted or impeached may not be disregarded. Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto Shop, 58 Idaho 438, 74 P.2d 171 (1937); Idaho Times Pub. Co. v. Industrial Accident Board, 63 Idaho 720, 126 P.2d 573 (1942); Olsen v. Hawkins, 90 Idaho 28, 408 P.2d 462 (1965); Hook v. Horner, 95 Idaho 657, 517 P.2d 554 (1973). See also, Bell, Handbook of Evidence for Idaho Lawyer (2d ed. 1972), p. 13. Specific findings of fact would dispel the uncertainty caused by the magistrate's memorandum opinion.

When the district judge was considering the appeal in this case, explicit findings of fact and separate conclusions of law by the magistrate would have clearly reflected the basis of the magistrate's decision, and then the district court more readily could have determined whether facts sustained the magistrate's decision and whether he had correctly applied the appropriate principles of law. Moreover, with such findings of fact, the district court could have properly determined whether this was such a case...