Williams' Will, In re
| Citation | 71 N.M. 39,1962 NMSC 149,376 P.2d 3 |
| Decision Date | 02 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 7026,7026 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Last WILL and Testament of Leon E. WILLIAMS, Deceased. Marietta Sinton GRAY, David W. Sinton, James H. Sinton and E. A. Bennett, Appellees, v. The ESTATE of Leon E. WILLIAMS and the Trustees of Dartmouth College, Residuary Legatee, Appellants. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
John B. Wright, Raton, Love & Cole, Colorado Springs, Colo., for appellant Estate of Leon E. Williams.
Henry E. Blattman, Las Vagas, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, William C. Briggs, Albuquerque, McLane, Carleton, Graf, Greene, & Brown, Manchester, N. H., for appellant Trustees of Dartmouth College, Residuary Legatee.
Kellahin & Fox, Santa Fe, Murray, Baker & Wendelken, Colorado Springs, Colo., for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Mora County, sitting in probate, in the matter of the last will and testament of Leon E. Williams. The will was admitted to probate in the probate court of Mora County and John F. Meck and James H. Sinton were appointed co-executors. The case was transferred by appeal to the district court (Sec. 16-4-18, N.M.S.A. 1953). John F. Meck resigned as executor and was replaced by William C. Bates. The only clause in the will concerning the present appeal is paragraph SIXTH, which reads as follows:
'SIXTH: I give, devise and bequeath the following amounts to my sisters, nieces and nephews they surviving me as set forth below:
'To my sister, Lorraine W. Bennett, Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).
'To my sister, Lucile W. McGee, Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).
'To my nephew, James H. Sinton, Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).
'To my nephew, Robert L. McGee, Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).
'To my nephew, David W. Sinton, Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).
'To my nephew, E. A. Bennett, Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).
'To my niece, Marietta Sinton Gray, Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).
'To my niece, Virginia Bennett Lawton, Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).
'To my niece, Betty Bennett Kemp, Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00).
'The above bequests shall be decreased by any gifts made by me during my lifetime subsequent to the date of the execution of this will to my nieces and nephews but not to my sisters.'
The co-executors filed their final report and application for determination of heirship. Paragraph XI of the report recited the bequests contained in paragraph SIXTH of the will and, as to certain of these bequests, reported as follows:
'That in said WILL, the decedent, Leon E. Williams further provided that each of the above bequests be decreased by any gifts made by him during his lifetime subsequent to the date of the execution of said WILL to his nieces and nephews, but not to his sisters; that subsequent to the execution of said WILL, and during the lifetime of said decedent, the decedent made gifts to certain of said nieces, nephews, and their respective families, which gifts constitute advances to said nieces and nephews as follows:
'James H. Sinton, wife and children $19,887.50
'David W. Sinton, wife and children 39,000.00
'E. A. Bennett, wife and children 32,850.00
'Marietta Sinton Gray, husband and children 36,000.00
'Virginia Bennett Lawton and children 17,568.75
'Betty Bennett Kemp and daughter 11,612.50
and said bequests should be decreased accordingly;
'That pursuant to the terms of said WILL, the sum of $50,000.00 has been paid to each of the following:
'Lorraine W. Bennett
'Lucile W. McGee
'Robert L. McGee
'That pursuant to the terms of said WILL, the sum of $38,387.50 has been paid to Betty Bennett Kemp;
'That pursuant to the terms of said WILL, the sum of $32,431.25 has been paid to Virginia Bennett Lawton;
'That pursuant to the terms of said WILL, the sum of $30,112.50 was tendered to James H. Sinton and was refused;
'That pursuant to the terms of said WILL, the sum of $11,000.00 was tendered to David W. Sinton and was refused;
'That pursuant to the terms of said WILL, the sum of $17,150.00 was tendered to E. A. Bennett and was refused;
'That pursuant to the terms of said WILL, the sum of $14,000.00 was tendered to Marietta Sinton Gray, and was refused;
'That in signing and presenting this report as co-executors, James H. Sinton, in his individual capacity and as legatee, does not waive the right to object to the matters set forth in this paragraph.'
Thereafter, David W. Sinton filed his objection to the final account setting forth the bequest to him of $50,000.00; admitting that subsequent to the date of the will decedent made a gift to him of securities of the value of no more than $2,850.00, and prayed for an order of the court requiring the executors to pay to him, after giving credit for the $2,850.00 received by him personally, the balance of $47,150.00, plus interest thereon from May 24, 1960, at 6 per cent.
James H. Sinton, individually and not as executor of the estate, filed his objection in substantially the same form, acknowledging that subsequent to the date of the will decedent made a gift of securities of the value of not more than $6,000.00, and praying for an order directing the payment to him personally of $44,000.00 of the $50,000.00 bequest, plus interest.
E. A. Bennett filed a similar objection, acknowledging that subsequent to the date of the will decedent made a gift to him of securities worth not more than $5,700.00 and seeking an order requiring the executors to pay to him personally an additional $44,300.00, plus interest. However, in his requested findings of fact, he admitted these securities were worth $6,000.00 and the court so found.
Marietta Sinton Gray filed her objection to the final account and report, acknowledging that subsequent to the date of the will the testator made a gift to her of securities worth not more than $5,700.00 and seeking an order requiring the executors to pay her personally an additional $44,300.00, plus interest.
Distribution of the remainder of the estate was made without objections from any of the other devisees under the will with the provision, nevertheless, that not less than $175,000.00 be retained by the co-executors to insure the payment of the sums sought by the objectors which might be allowed; and a final decree was entered approving the final account and report otherwise and determining heirship, but retaining jurisdiction to determine the issues raised by the objectors.
A hearing was held by the court and the residuary legatee, the Trustees of Dartmouth College, and the co-executors introduced witnesses who testified to conversations with the deceased regarding the bequests advancements and regarding the gifts to his nephews and nieces, including the objectors. The residuary legatee also introduced 29 documents as exhibits, consisting of letters to and from the decedent concerning his gifts to the nephews and nieces and their families; letters to his former classmates explaining his inter vivos and testamentary program, and an accounting schedule showing gifts or advances made after the execution of the will and prior to the testator's death, and notes and comments of the testator on copies of the will in his own handwriting, all of which will be hereinafter referred to. The court allowed the admission of the testimony over objections, subject, nevertheless, to its being later stricken should the court so rule. The estate and residuary legatee rested its case and the objectors, after being given an opportunity to proceed with their testimony, rested their cases without offering any testimony, written or oral. The testimony introduced therefore stands uncontradicted.
Requested findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by the respective parties and after a hearing before the court upon the requested findings and conclusions the court reversed its earlier ruling, sustaining objections to the admission of the oral testimony, exhibits, letters, comments on the will and accounting schedule showing gifts and, in effect, struck all of the testimony entered in the case as inadmissible. Thereafter, the court filed its decision, consisting of the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law and at the same time entered an order denying all findings and conclusions not included in the decision of the court to which the executors and residuary legatee filed their objections and exceptions. The findings and conclusions made by the court material hereto are as follows:
'3. That the decedent, Leon E. Williams, was a certified public accountant, thoroughly familiar in the field of federal taxation and thoroughly familiar with the provisions of the United States Statutes and regulations governing income and estate taxes. He was not an attorney at law.
'4. That the will dated April 10, 1958, was written by Leon E. Williams personally.
'5. That between April 10, 1958, and the date of his death, Leon E. Williams made gifts to the Objectors as follows:
'James Sinton $6,000.00
'David Sinton 2,850.00
'Marietta Gray 5,700.00
'E. A. Bennett 6,000.00
'TOTAL $20,550.00
'6. That under the terms of paragraph SIXTH of said last will and testament each of said Objectors, to-wit: MARIETTA SINTON GRAY, E. A. BENNETT, JAMES H. SINTON, and DAVID W. SINTON, were bequeathed the sum of $50,000, subject to the following provision:
"The above bequests shall be decreased by any gifts made by me during my lifetime subsequent to the date of the execution of this will to my nieces and nephews but not to my sisters.'
'7. That each of said Objectors is a niece or nephew of said decedent.
'8. That the Executors herein have failed and refused to pay over to Objectors herein the amount of said legacy, less the amount of gifts to the respective Objectors, all as provided in said will; and that Objectors, and each of them, have filed timely Objections to the final account and report of Executors herein and to said failure and refusal on the part of Executors.
'9. Gifts in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper v. Curry, 3176
...properly considered the remoteness and vagueness of the testimony in determining the probative value of the testimony. In re Williams' Will, 71 N.M. 39, 376 P.2d 3 (1962). Another portion of Dr. Schultz' testimony went to Dr. Curry's excessive visits to welfare patients. While this might sh......
-
Gonzales v. Public Employees Retirement Bd.
...63, 66, 475 P.2d 457, 460 (1970); Yates v. Ferguson, 81 N.M. 613, 615, 471 P.2d 183, 185 (1970); Gray v. Estate of Williams (In re Will of Williams), 71 N.M. 39, 68-69, 376 P.2d 3, 23 (1962); South Second Livestock Auction, Inc. v. Roberts, 69 N.M. 155, 162, 364 P.2d 859, 864 (1961); Tapia ......
-
Pavlos v. Albuquerque Nat. Bank
...properly refuse to permit the question absent some showing as to the relevancy of signs at those distances. Compare In re Williams' Will, 71 N.M. 39, 376 P.2d 3 (1962). Here, there is no showing of the relevancy of signs so far removed from the accident scene, and, thus, nothing on which to......
-
Frederick v. Younger Van Lines
...inferences may not be unceremoniously cast aside and disregarded, and findings diametrically opposed thereto lack support. In re Williams' Will, 71 N.M. 39, 376 P.2d 3; Morris v. Cartwright, 57 N.M. 328, 258 P.2d 719; Medler v. Henry, It is next important that we review the cases to determi......