Van Brunt v. Osterlund

Decision Date03 December 1953
Docket NumberGen. No. 10701
Citation351 Ill.App. 556,115 N.E.2d 909
PartiesVAN BRUNT v. OSTERLUND et al.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Joseph R. Rosborough, Moline, for appellant.

Walter J. Klockau, Jr., Henry W. Parsons, Moline, for appellees.

ANDERSON, Presiding Justice.

Charles Edward Johnson died testate in 1949. His will was admitted to probate in the Probate Court of Rock Island County, Illinois. Anna Van Brunt, plaintiff-appellant herein, was nominated in the will and was appointed and qualified as executrix in Rock Island County Probate Court on March 15, 1949. The second clause of Johnson's will provides as follows:

'I give and bequeath to my sister, Christine Amelia Pettersson, of Stensvassa, Sweden, the sum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00). I have not seen my sister in a great many years, and do not know whether she is living or not at this time, but if she should not be living, I direct that this bequest shall be paid to her heirs-at-law, as the same may be determined, according to the law of the State of Illinois. I do also direct that the provisions of this paragraph, for my sister or her heirs-at-law, are subject to the condition that if my sister or anyone for her, or her heirs if she is not living or anyone for them, should start, institute or commence any action whatsoever to contest the validity of this will in any way, or take any action whatsoever to have the effect of invalidating or nullifying the provisions of this will, that thereupon the provisions of this paragraph for my sister or her heirs if she should not be living, shall immediately be cancelled and the said sum bequeathed by this paragraph shall revert to the residuary clause herein.'

The above is the only specific legacy contained in the will.

The testator devised his real estate to various neighbors and tenants, strangers to his blood. He devised the remainder of his estate, both real and personal, to Anna Van Brunt, also a stranger to his blood. The will stated that this devise and bequest was made in lieu of payment to her for her care of him during the past several years.

On December 14, 1949, Tage Pettersson and May Ivy Jonsson filed a suit in the Circuit Court of Rock Island County to contest the will of Charles Edward Johnson on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The complaint alleged that the appellees, Hilma Kristine Osterlund, Anna Maria Pettersson, and Axel Hjalmar Pettersson were the children of the testator's sister, Christine Amelia Pettersson, named as legatee in the second clause of the will and who predeceased the testator by two weeks.

The contestants to the will alleged that they were beneficiaries under a will dated in 1945 in which the appellees were not included. The devisees named in the will and the executrix, defendants, filed an answer in the will contest suit denying the charges. The appellees who lived in Sweden and were defendants in the will contest suit were served as non-residents by publication. There is nothing appearing in the record showing that they ever received the notice mailed to them pursuant to the statute. They did not appear at the trial on the contest of the will nor did they file answer or appear by attorney. The Circuit Court entered a default against them. The will contest case was tried before a jury on April 2, 1951. The jury returned a verdict finding against the contestants and on October 24, 1951, the court dismissed the complaint for want of equity.

On February 29, 1952 the executrix filed her final report in the Probate Court and alleged that because the appellees had permitted a default to be entered against them in the will contest suit, the bequest of $5,000 was forfeited under the provisions of clause two of the will, and belonged to her, as the residuary beneficiary. The appellees filed an answer denying the forfeiture, and after a hearing the Probate Court held that the legacy was not forfeited and directed its payment to the appellees, the only heirs-at-law of Christine Amelia Pettersson, their mother. The appellant appealed from this order to the Circuit Court, and the matter was there tried de novo and the Circuit Court held that the legacy was not forfeited and directed its payment in the same manner as directed by the Probate Court. Anna Van Brunt has appealed from that order to this court.

The appellant admits in her brief that there is just one question to be resolved on this appeal, namely, whether or not the legacy of the appellees was forfeited under the terms of the will by reason of the fact that the appellees permitted a default to be entered against them in the suit to contest the will. It is admitted by the appellant that the appellees took no affirmative action of any kind in the will contest suit.

The case of Lobb v. Brown, 208 Cal. 476, 281 P. 1010, 1015, cited by appellees, is quite in point. The will in that case contained a forfeiture clause that if any beneficiary 'shall 'institute proceedings in anywise contesting this my last will and testament'', the share of such person should go to the residuary legatee or legatees not contesting it. Two nephews of the testator, beneficiaries under his will, were made parties defendant to a suit contesting the will. They filed an answer in which they failed to deny the charges that the will had been procured by undue influence. The suit was later dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs had no interest in the estate. The executor later brought an action against the nephews alleging that they had forfeited their legacy by contesting the will. The reviewing court affirmed a judgment for the defendants. The court held that the fact that the nephews had failed to deny the charge of undue influence did not tend to show that they were aiding in the contest. The court further said:

'* * * The respondents were under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to deny in their said answer the charge of undue influence made against appellant. In fact, they may have been unable, as they understood and believed the facts of that case to be, to truthfully deny said charge. Their failure to include such a denial in their answer under these circumstances could not under any possible hypothesis be construed as a breach of any provision of said will.'

In Clark v. Bentley, 398 Ill. 535, 76 N.E.2d 438, 441, the will provided that in case any of the testator's children should contest the validity of the will or attempt to alter or change any of its provisions, they should lose their beneficial interest. It was held that the making of a quitclaim deed by the children to the widow followed by a quitclaim deed by the widow to each of the children of an undivided interest in the rents and proceeds in the real estate was not a violation of the will that would work a forfeiture under the provisions against contests. The court said that the making of the deeds could not reasonably be construed as a 'contest' of the will. The court further said in finding there was no forfeiture:

'We are further guided by the well-established rule that equity does not favor forfeitures, and in construing conditions, both precedent and subsequent, a reasonable...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Kapraun's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 9, 1959
    ...149 Ill.App. 186. Being penal in nature it should be strictly construed to prevent the imposition of the penalty. Van Brunt v. Osterlund, 1953, 351 Ill.App. 556, 115 N.E.2d 909. It is perhaps not necessary to try to make any definitive interpretation or construction of some of the applicabl......
  • Estate of Vaden, Matter of
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • October 11, 1983
    ...such time. This case was followed in In re Estate of Eliopulos, 328 Ill.App. 389, 66 N.E.2d 183 (1943) and Van Brunt v. Osterlund, 351 Ill.App. 556, 115 N.E.2d 909 (App.1953). In Woodward's Estate v. Holton, 78 Vt. 254, 62 A. 718 (1906) the Vermont Supreme Court held that pecuniary legacies......
  • Oglesby v. Springfield Marine Bank
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1962
    ... ... Bentley, 398 Ill. 535, 540, 76 N.E.2d 438; Van Brunt v. Osterlund, 351 Ill.App. 556, 562, 115 N.E.2d 909) and the principle of ejusdem generis, argue that the term 'carry on' is limited to conduct of ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT