Thompson's Estates, Matter of
Decision Date | 27 October 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 49860,49860 |
Citation | 226 Kan. 437,601 P.2d 1105 |
Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATES of Kenneth E. THOMPSON and Gertrude Thompson. Glenn B. THOMPSON et al., Appellants, v. James I. LANE, Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. When the record on appeal consists of stipulated facts and documentary evidence an appellate court stands in the same position as the trial court in determining what is shown.
2. In order for a mistake to have legal significance and to constitute a basis for invalidating a compromise settlement agreement, it must be based upon the parties' unconscious ignorance and not related to one of the uncertainties of which the parties were conscious and which it was the purpose of the compromise to resolve and put at rest. Relief will not be granted for a mistake in prophecy, opinion or in belief relative to an uncertain event.
3. Family settlement agreements are favorites of the law and, when fairly made, are to be given liberal interpretation and should not be disturbed by those who entered into them.
4. Where parties enter into a family settlement agreement with the intention to resolve and put to rest all disputes among them and where the existence of an original will of one of the deceased members of the family was one of the uncertainties involved, the settlement will not be set aside because such original will was subsequently found under the facts and circumstances shown to exist.
Robert K. Scovel, of Scovel, Emert & Heasty, Independence, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellants.
John M. Wall, Sedan, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.
This is an appeal from rulings of the district court setting aside a compromise settlement agreement on the ground of mutuality of mistake and overruling the appellants' motion for summary judgment. The settlement agreement stemmed from issues framed by the parties in probate proceedings initiated in the probate court in the estates of Gertrude Thompson, deceased, Kenneth E. Thompson, deceased, and an action filed in the district court entitled "Glenn B. Thompson v. James I. Lane." For purposes of this appeal the three matters have been consolidated because the parties agree the issues in each case are common to those in the other cases and the decision herein would be dispositive of all issues involved. The appellants are heirs at law of Kenneth E. Thompson. The appellee is an heir at law of Gertrude Thompson and a beneficiary under the wills of both Kenneth and Gertrude. All of the parties have claimed an interest in all or part of both estates.
The litigation involves two estates. The first is that of Gertrude Thompson who died December 5, 1972, leaving a will dated December 19, 1968, in which she left a life estate in certain real estate to her husband, Kenneth, and the remainder to her nephew, James I. Lane, appellee herein. The residue of her estate was bequeathed by Gertrude to her husband, Kenneth. Gertrude's will was not found until June of 1974. On June 18, 1974, James I. Lane filed a petition in probate court to admit Gertrude's will to probate. In the meantime Kenneth Thompson and James I. Lane had reached an agreement for the sale of the real estate in which Gertrude had bequeathed a life estate to Kenneth. Determination of descent proceedings were instituted and concluded in which the probate court decreed that Kenneth was the sole heir at law of Gertrude.
Kenneth E. Thompson died on April 17, 1974, and a search for his will was made. No original will was found but a copy of a will was in the possession of the attorney who drafted it. On May 20, 1974, the appellee filed a petition in probate court to admit the copy of the will to probate. No notice of hearing was given to appellants who are the heirs at law of Kenneth. Counsel for appellee explains that one of the witnesses to the will was a nonresident and until arrangements were made to take her deposition no time for hearing on the petition to probate was fixed and thus no notice had been given. A deposition of the witness was subsequently taken without notice to the Thompson heirs.
On May 23, 1974, a petition was filed by one of the appellants, Glenn B. Thompson, for the appointment of an administrator of Kenneth's estate.
A hearing was had in which the probate court denied the petition for the appointment of an administrator and admitted the copy of the will to probate on the petition of appellee Lane. On appeal, the order of the probate court was overruled by the district court for procedural reasons and the matter was remanded to probate court. At this juncture of the proceedings counsel commenced negotiations for a settlement of all matters in dispute.
Concerning the negotiations leading up to the settlement, the agreed statement of facts reads in pertinent part as follows:
Appellee proceeded to file his petition for admission of the original will to probate and to set aside the settlement agreement and the order of the district court approving the same. The matter was submitted to the district court on an agreed statement of facts and briefs of the parties. The district court found the settlement agreement should be set aside announcing its findings as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matsuura v. EI Du Pont de Nemours and Co.
...Amantiad, 90 Hawai`i at 162, 977 P.2d at 170 (italics in original) (underscored emphasis added) (quoting Matter of Estates of Thompson, 226 Kan. 437, 601 P.2d 1105, 1108 (1979)). Indeed, the portion of this court's opinion omitted by DuPont clearly articulates the law's disapproval of settl......
-
90 Hawai'i 152, Amantiad v. Odum
...enter into an agreement settling and adjusting a dispute, neither party is permitted to repudiate it." Matter of Estates of Thompson, 226 Kan. 437, 440, 601 P.2d 1105, 1108 (1979). The Washington Supreme Court said it even more tersely: "The law favors settlements and consequently it must f......
-
Dorman v. Kansas City Terminal Ry. Co.
...both recognize mutual mistake as to a material past or present fact as grounds for invalidating a release. In re Estate of Thompson, 226 Kan. 437, 441, 601 P.2d 1105 (1979); Fieser v. Stinnett, 212 Kan. 26, Syl. P 3, 509 P.2d 1156 We are now ready for the final question. Was there a suffici......
-
Kansas State Bank & Trust Co. v. DeLorean
...contract is in writing." Kauk v. First Nat'l Bank of Hoxie, 5 Kan.App.2d 83, 87, 613 P.2d 670 (1980). Accord, In re Estate of Thompson, 226 Kan. 437, 440, 601 P.2d 1105 (1979); Keeler Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rly. Co., 187 Kan. 125, 126, 354 P.2d 368 A contract of guaranty, like other co......
-
Gambling With Settlement Proceeds: Confidentiality After Amos v. Commissioner
...[64] A compromise and settlement may be repudiated in the presence of mutual mistake, fraud, or bad faith. See In re Estate of Thompson, 226 Kan. 437, 440, 601 P.2d 1105 (1979); Ferguson v. Smith, 31 Kan. App. 2d 311, 63 P.3d 1119, 1122 (2003). However, the mutual mistake must be a mistake ......