Winslow's Estate, In re
| Citation | 259 Iowa 1316,147 N.W.2d 814 |
| Decision Date | 10 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 52309,52309 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the ESTATE of Charles W. WINSLOW, Deceased. Helen W. SHEETS, Harry C. Winslow, John Winslow, David Winslow, Edward Winslow, Kathryn Mosier and Maxine Christopherson, Appellants, v. Olive Enslow CALKINS, Constance Haw and Virginia May Trombley, Appellees. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Richard D. Morr, Chariton, for appellants.
Killmar, Reynoldson & Harvey, Osceola, for appellees.
This is a proceeding in probate, tried in equity pursuant to section 633.33, Code of 1966, for the construction of the will of Charles W. Winslow, deceased. The executors asked for construction of the will and directions as to distribution.
Charles W. Winslow, a widower, died testate in October 1963. His will, executed November 30, 1959, has been admitted to probate. Testator was survived by one daughter and other legatees within varying degrees of affinity and consanguinity.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of testator's will directed the payment of debts and the erection of a monument. The additional provisions were as follows:
'3. I will, devise and bequeath to Olive Enslow Calkins of Rock Island, Ill., the sum of $10,000.00 in cash.
'4. I will, devise and bequeath to the grand-daughter of Olive Enslow Calkins, Constance Haw of Rock Island, Ill., the sum of $5,000.00 in cash.
'5. I will, devise and bequeath to my beloved daughter, Virginia May Trombley, Garden City, California, the sum of $10,000.00 in cash.
'6. To the following named nieces and nephews, I will, devise and bequeath, to each the sum of $1,000.00 in cash:
'Helen W Sheets, Corydon, Iowa
'Harry C. Winslow, Allerton, Iowa
'John Winslow, Long Beach, Cal.
'David Winslow, Indiana, Penna.
'Edward Winslow, Creston, Iowa
'Mrs. Kathryn Moser, Des Moines, Iowa
'Mrs. Maxine Christopherson, Spencer, Iowa
'7. All the rest and remainder over of my estate, I will, devise and bequeath to the above named legatees in the same shares as set out to each above, and if my estate is not of sufficient size, at my death to pay out all of the above set out legacies in full then I will that each of the legacies be cut proportionately.
Olive Enslow Calkins named in paragraph 3 is a sister-in-law. Mardis V. Sheets, nominated as one of the executors, is the husband of Helen W. Sheets, a niece named in paragraph 6 as a legatee.
The estate consisting entirely of personal property was valued at a little over $87,000.
The beneficiaries named in paragraph 6 of the will claim that under paragraph 7 the remainder should be distributed to them, i.e. to each 1/7th of the remainder. The beneficiaries named in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 claim proportionate participation in the remainder.
The trial court construed the will and directed distribution of the residue of the estate after payment of all specific bequests as follows:
To Olive Enslow Calkins 10/32
To Constance Haw 5/32
To Virginia May Trombley 10/32
To Helen W. Sheets 1/32
To Harry C. Winslow 1/32
To John Winslow 1/32
To David Winslow 1/32
To Edward Winslow 1/32
To Mrs. Kathryn Mosier 1/32
To Mrs. Maxine Christopherson 1/32
The seven beneficiaries named in paragraph 6 appealed.
We affirm.
At the trial the executors offered the will and order admitting it to probate and rested. Appellees offered the several documents showing the estate proceedings and rested.
Appellants called as witnesses and offered the testimony of Helen W. Sheets, one of the beneficiaries in paragraph 6 of the will, Mardis V. Sheets, one of the executors and husband of Helen, and Lucile M. Anderson, the scrivener who drew the will.
I. Mrs. Sheets testified as to testator's history, background and relatives. She related the frequency and extent of his visits in her home and the Harry C. Winslow home. Over timely and appropriate objections as to the competency of the witness under section 622.4, Code of Iowa (dead man statute) and the admissibility of parol evidence to vary the terms of the will the witness told of conversations and personal transactions with testator. She told how testator said he wanted to make a will and asked the witness to make an appointment with an attorney. Mrs. Sheets made the appointment. She and her husband took testator to the attorney's office. She was present and participated in the conversation. She related what was said and done. There is no suggestion of any undue influence or impropriety on her part but Mrs. Sheets was clearly incompetent as a witness under section 622.4, Code of Iowa, commonly called the dead man statute. She was a party to the proceeding and interested in the event thereof. She related conversations and transactions with the testator in which she participated. The trial court properly sustained the objections to her competency.
II. Mardis V. Sheets, over timely and appropriate objections, told of conversations and transactions with testator. He participated therein. With his wife and testator he drove to Chariton. He let them out of the car in front of the attorney's office. He parked his car, went to the office, was invited in by testator and was present thereafter. He told what was said and done preparatory to, at the time of and subsequent to the execution of the will. There is no suggestion of any impropriety on his part, but the trial court properly sustained the objections to his competency.
III. As we said in Carlson v. Bankers Trust Co., 242 Iowa 1207, 1213, 50 N.W.2d 1, 5, 'We are committed to the view section 622.4 is not to be enlarged by construction and those whom the statute designates incompetent will be held so only as to the particular kind of testimony clearly forbidden by the statute.' Citing cases. Here, however, the witnesses attempted to testify as to what the testator said to them, what they did together, and what was said and done throughout the transaction involved in the particular issue before us. It is not a case where a silent nonparticipant relates what was overheard. Here the whole transaction is tied together. The witnesses were incompetent because the statute so provides.
Mrs. Sheets could and did testify as to testator's background, relationship, habits and activities that did not relate to conversations or the transactions involved herein, but that did not make her competent as to the issues before us.
IV. The scrivener who prepared the will had not previously known testator. She said testator and Mrs. Sheets came to her office. Testator wanted to make a will and instructed as to its provisions. Over timely and appropriate objections she testified as to what was said and done. 'He wanted to specifically give a certain amount to 3 different people, and he wanted the rest of it to go to his nieces and nephews.' He had names and addresses written on a little piece of paper. If there was more than enough to pay the specific bequests the rest was She testified that there was a typographical error of omission and that 'one word 'last' that should have been written between the word 'above' and the word 'name' in the second line of the 7th paragraph' was omitted.
The will was typed in testator's presence, read to him as written, declared by him to be his last will and testament in the presence of two subscribing witnesses, executed in due form and then sealed in an envelope and delivered to testator. An unsealed copy was also given to testator.
The scrivener said that when the will was read after decedent's death she was surprised to discover what she called her error.
V. It should be kept in mind that this is not a will contest nor an action to set aside the will. The will has been admitted to probate without objection. There is no claim of any such mistake as might invalidate the will. There is no claim of insufficient execution, undue influence or lack of testamentary capacity. The sole question is interpretation of the will.
The trial court carefully reviewed the problem and concluded that the intention of the testator must be gathered from the will itself without the aid of extrinsic evidence.
In Schmidt v. Claus, 250 Iowa 314, 93 N.W.2d 592 there was an offer of testimony as to statements made by testator as to his understanding of the meaning of the will. We said, 'The trial court properly gave this testimony no weight.' Citing cases. Loc. cit. 318, 93 N.W.2d loc. cit. 595.
In re Estate of Larson, 256 Iowa 1392, 131 N.W.2d 503 involved construction of a will. We said:
'It is well settled law (1) the testator's intent is the polestar and must prevail; (2) his intent must be gathered from a consideration of (a) all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kalouse's Estate, Matter of
...from that disclosed by the language of the will." See Wagg v. Mickelwait, 165 N.W.2d 829, 831 (Iowa 1969); In re Estate of Winslow, 259 Iowa 1316, 1323, 147 N.W.2d 814, 818 (1967) (scrivener's testimony excluded); In re Estate of Hogan, 259 Iowa 887, 890, 146 N.W.2d 257, 258 (1966); In re E......
-
Giarratano v. Weitz Co.
... Page 824 ... 147 N.W.2d 824 ... 259 Iowa 1292 ... Joseph GIARRATANO, Administrator of the Estate of Erwin A. Giarratano, Deceased, Appellant, ... The WEITZ COMPANY, Inc., Appellee ... No. 52089 ... Supreme Court of Iowa ... Jan. 10, ... ...
-
Fairley's Estate, In re
...meant to say but what he meant by what he did say.' In re Estate of Hogan, 259 Iowa 887, 146 N.W.2d 257, 258; In re Estate of Winslow, 259 Iowa 1316, 147 N.W.2d 814, 818; Bankers Trust Co. v. Allen, 257 Iowa 938, 944, 135 N.W.2d 607, 610--611. If the language of the will and codicil is clea......
-
Estate of Kiel, In re
...529-30. In other words: The question is not what the testator meant to say but what she meant by what she did say. In re Estate of Winslow, 259 Iowa at 1322, 147 N.W.2d at 818 (terms of will are binding even though scrivner's error is V. We have not ignored Hubert's claim that the certifica......