Winn v. Dolezal

• Decision Date: 06 July 1960
• Docket Number: No. 38124,38124
• Parties: Evelyn WINN, Rudolph Dolezal and Edward Dolezal, also known as Frank Dolezal, Jr., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Fred DOLEZAL, as Executor of the last Will and Testament of Frank Dolezal, Deceased; Fred Dolezal, individually, Emil Dolezal; and Charles Dolezal, Defendants in Error.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 859

355 P.2d 859

1960 OK 165

Evelyn WINN, Rudolph Dolezal and Edward Dolezal, also known

as Frank Dolezal, Jr., Plaintiffs in Error, v. Fred DOLEZAL, as Executor of the last Will and Testament of

Frank Dolezal, Deceased; Fred Dolezal,

individually, Emil Dolezal; and Charles

Dolezal, Defendants in Error.

No. 38124.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

July 6, 1960.

As Amended July 11, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1960.

Syllabus by the Court

1. An 'insane delusion', within the rule invalidating will, denotes a false belief, which would be incredible in the same circumstance to victim thereof were he of sound mind and from which he cannot be dissuaded by any evidence or argument.

2. The contest of a will is a matter of equitable cognizance and the findings and judgment of the trial court will not be reversed on appeal unless the same are clearly against the weight of the evidence.

Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County; Wm. L. Fogg, Judge.

Contest of will after probate. Contest denied by County Court and upon appeal to the District Court, denial of contest was affirmed. Contestants appeal from judgment of the District Court. Affirmed.

Virgil M. Shaw, El Reno, Bulla, Melone, Meister & Sheehan, Oklahoma City, and Louis H. Roth, Jamaica, N. Y., for plaintiffs in error.

R. J. Kintz, Yukon, and Porta & Weaver, El Reno, for defendants in error.

PER CURIAM.

Frank Dolezal died testate and his will was admitted to probate. Within the time allowed by statute, Evelyn Winn, Rudolph Dolezal and Edward Dolezal contested the will on the ground that the testator was, at the time of the execution of the will, laboring under the insane delusion that they (the contestants) were not his children. The County Court denied the contest. On appeal to the District Court, where the matter was heard de novo, the contest was denied. After a motion for a new trial was overruled, the contestants perfected this appeal.

Frank Dolezal died on June 20, 1955, and the will under contest was executed by him on November 17, 1953. That portion of the will material to the issues involved, is:

'(2) To Evelyn Winn, Rudolph Dolezal, and Edward Dolezal, the children of my former wife Frances Dolezal, we being now divorced for many years, I give and bequeath the sum of Five ($5.00) Dollars each, and said above named children are to receive nothing further from my estate; said children were born to my said former wife during the time that I and she were husband and wife, but which said children I am not the father of and do not acknowledge either of them as being my children; however in any event said above named children are to be fully bound by the above provisions herein made for them, and in the event they are either of them, should attempt to contest this Will or the provisions so made for them, then and in that event said contesting person or persons shall receive nothing from my estate.

'(3) All of the rest, residue and remainder of my property, both real and personal, of every kind, and wheresoever situated, whether vested or contingent at the time of my death, I devise and bequeath to my brothers, Fred Dolezal, Emil Dolezal, and Charles Dolezal, equally, share and share alike.'

The trial court found, inter alia, that the testator left the above will and in considering that portion relating to the parenthood of the contestants found that 'based upon all of the evidence in this case the conclusion arrived at by the said Frank Dolezal, and as reflected in his will above referred to, was not a spontaneous conclusion. That under the evidence in this case there were actual facts relied upon by the testator which caused him to enter upon a process of reasoning, and constituted a rational basis for his conclusion as reflected in the will, and that therefore the testator was not at the time of the execution of the will laboring under any insane delusion, and therefore under the evidence presented the testator had general testamentary capacity.

The contestants contend the trial court erred in failing and refusing to find that testator was laboring under an insane delusion that contestants were not his children when he executed his will; erred in refusing to find as a fact that contestants were in fact the natural and legitimate children of testator; and that the findings of fact and the judgment of the trial court were against the clear weight of evidence and, in fact, not supported by any evidence at all.

The contestants do not contend that testator did not have the capacity to make the will, or was of unsound mind, or incapable of knowing what he was doing, or was incompetent to manage and control his property. The only basis for contesting the will is that testator was laboring under an insane delusion that contestants were not his children when he executed his will.

An insane delusion may exist notwithstanding full mental capacity in other respects and the test as to validity of a will when contested upon the ground that testator was laboring under an insane delusion is not whether testator had general testamentary capacity, but whether an insane delusion materially affected the will. An insane delusion is a belief in things which do not exist, and which no rational mind would believe to exist. The essence of an insane delusion is that it has no basis in reason, cannot be dispelled by reason, and can be accounted for only as the product of mental disorder. In In re Robertson's Estate, 199 Okl. 582, 189 P.2d 615, 618, we quoted with approval In re Klein's Estate, 28 Wash.2d 456, 183 P.2d 518, wherein it is stated:

'An 'insane delusion', within rule invalidating will, denotes a false belief, which would be incredible in the same circumstance to victim thereof were he of sound mind and from which he cannot be dissuaded by any evidence or argument.'

In the case of In re Elston's Estate, Okl. 262 P.2d 148, we held:

'Where a belief, religious or otherwise, is a creation purely of the imagination, it may be evidence of, or constitute, an insane delusion, but where it is based upon evidence and arrived at through a process of reasoning, though such reasoning may be regarded by the majority of other persons as faulty and illogical, yet, if it is not so contrary to reason that none but a person of unsound mind could entertain it, it is not such a delusion as may be deemed an 'insane delusion'; and though a testator's practical disinheritance of some of his children may have been prompted or brought about by such a belief, such fact, in itself, and without evidence of mental derangement or unbalance in other phases of life or demeanor will not invalidate the will.'

The question then, is not whether the contestants are the natural or legitimate children of testator, but whether the testator had any basis for his reasoning that he was not their father and such reasoning would be incredible to someone of a sound mind or so contrary to reason that none but a person of unsound mind could entertain it. Therefore, the presumption of legitimacy of children born in wedlock as provided by Title 10 O.S.1951 § 1, is not applicable in considering the issues involved.

In considering this question, we find the testator, Frank Dolezal, came to what is now known as Comanche County, Oklahoma, from Kansas in 1901, and purchased a relinquishment of a claim to a farm. In 1903, he returned to Kansas during the wheat harvest and on November 3, 1903, married the mother of the contestants and they returned to his farm in Comanche County to live.

On December 8, 1903, the oldest of the contestants was born. Subsequently, three more children were born, the youngest being born in November, 1915. One son, Clarence, who will be specifically referred to, died several...