Willett v. Triplett
| Decision Date | 29 March 1968 |
| Citation | 431 S.W.2d 502 |
| Parties | Harvey WILLETT, a Person of unsound mind, by his Next Friend, Evelyn Settle, Appellant, v. George V. TRIPLETT, Committee for Harvey Willett et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Thomas E. Sandidge, Sandidge & Sandidge, Owensboro, for appellant.
Grover C. Cox, Owensboro, Herbert Schultzman, Paducah, Philip B. Hayden, Nathan B. Cooper, Paul E. Bugay, Owensboro, for appellees.
DAVIS, Commissioner.
The issues before us arise in the same factual background referred to in Settle v. Triplett, Committee, Ky., 426 S.W.2d 423.
The appellant, Evelyn Settle, as next friend of Harvey Willett, a person of unsound mind, instituted proceedings seeking to have set aside a previous order of the Daviess Circuit Court authorizing the appellee, George V. Triplett, Committee for Harvey Willett, to enter a compromise agreement pertaining to a possible contest of the will of Joseph G. Settle, deceased. The trial court dismissed the complaint upon motions made by the present appellees without requiring any answer relating to the merit of the matters alleged in the complaint and amended complaints.
The background of this controversy, as gleaned from the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, is thus summarized: Joseph G. Settle died in 1964, and his purported holographic will was admitted to probate in the Daviess County Court. At the time of the institution of the present proceedings, no action undertaking a contest of that purported will had been filed. George V. Triplett was appointed as Committee for Harvey Willett by order of the Daviess County Court, pursuant to a judgment in an inquest proceeding had in the Daviess Circuit Court against Willett. The purported will of the decedent devised $1,000 to Harvey Willett, his nephew, 'to be in trust to be used as may be most needed for his living and health.' There was another special bequest of $1,000 in trust for Mrs. Frances Settle, a sister of the decedent, and a bequest of $500 in trust for W. A. Settle, another nephew of the testator. The will directed that testator's sister, Willie Settle, should 'have a good living out of my estate and * * * anything she may desire that is a necessity for her so long as she may live.' The entire residue of the estate was left to be equally divided among three religious organizations. The appraised value of the estate was $186,000.
On May 3, 1965, appellee Triplett, as Committee for Harvey Willett, filed an ex parte proceeding in the Daviess Circuit Court alleging that an offer had been received by the committee from the personal representatives of the estate of Joseph G. Settle, by which the sum of $10,000 would be paid from that estate into the hands of the Committee for Harvey Willett in exchange for an agreement in behalf of Willett to forego any right to contest the will of Joseph G. Settle. Representations were made in the ex parte proceeding that the prospect of successful contest was poor and that the proposed compromise would redound to the best interests of Harvey Willett, the incompetent. It is made to appear that in the event of a successful contest Harvey Willett would receive one-half of the net estate of the decedent, or approximately $90,000 gross. Failing a successful contest and absent any compromise, the ward would receive only the $1,000 bequeathed to him in trust.
It appears that there was no process issued nor any recorded proof taken in the ex parte proceeding. Neither was a guardian ad litem appointed for the incompetent. On the same date that the ex parte proceeding was filed, an order was entered by the Daviess Circuit Court approving the compromise and authorizing the committee to implement it by accepting the $10,000 and executing a quitclaim deed. On that same date the committee sought and obtained, ex parte, an order of the Daviess County Court authorizing him to pay $5,000 to his attorney for services for obtaining the compromise payment of $10,000. The present action was filed May 20, 1965, asserting substantially the facts just recounted and alleging that an additional $4,000 of the $10,000 obtained in the compromise was to be paid to Western State Hospital for past due payments for maintenance, support, and treatment of Harvey Willett. The complaint averred that the compromise settlement would be of no ultimate or personal benefit to Harvey Willett, that said settlement was unreasonable 'if not unconscionable,' that the order authorizing it was utterly void because of the failure to serve any summons, notice, or other process on the incompetent, for failure to appoint a guardian ad litem to defend him, and for lack of...
To continue reading
Request your trial