Woods v. Society for Propagation of Faith of Archdiocese of New Orleans, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1971 |
| Docket Number | 8440,Nos. 8439,s. 8439 |
| Citation | 251 So.2d 438 |
| Parties | Mrs. Minnie Ruhl WOODS and Mrs. Lorena Ruhl Hillerich, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The SOCIETY FOR the PROPAGATION OF the FAITH OF the ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS, INC., and Mrs. Ellis Sophie von Grosschoppe Ruhl, Defendants-Appellees. Mrs. Minnie Ruhl WOODS and Mrs. Lorena Ruhi Hillerich, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Succession of Joseph Louis RUHL, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
H. Alva Brumfield, Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Thomas A. Rayer, of Denechaud & Denechaud, and Roy F. Guste and James M. Colomb, Jr., of Guste, Barnett & Colomb, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.
Before LOTTINGER, SARTAIN and TUCKER, JJ.
These consolidated actions are concerned with attempts to invalidate donations inter vivos and mortis causa made by Joseph Louis Ruhl, now deceased.
By an act of donation dated January 24, 1958, the decedent donated the entirety of his estate to the Society for the Propagation of the Faith, Archdiocese of New Orleans, (hereinafter referred to as the Society), said estate consisting of extensive landholdings in the Parishes of Orleans and St. Tammany. Ancilliary to the act of donation was an agreement between Mr. Ruhl and the Society by which the donor, in essence, retained the full control and management of his estate, to include the collection of all revenues. In later acts of donation, Mr. Ruhl purportedly conveyed less significant tracts of land to the Society as he acquired them.
On September 1, 1961, Mr. Ruhl executed the following olograph:
'New Orleans, Louisiana
'September 1st, 1961
'I, Joseph Louis Ruhl, hereby make this, my last will and testament, revoking all other wills ever made by me.
'I give and bequest to the Society for the Propaganda of the Faith, Archdiocese of New Orleans, all of the property I die possessed, of both movable and immovable.
'I name, designate and appoint the Right Reverend Monsignor Herman P. Lohmann as my testamentary Executor, with full seizan and without bond.
'Thanks be to God and may He have mercy on my poor soul.
Joseph Louis Ruhl'
The testator died on September 27, 1963, at the age of seventy-six, after having been struck by an automobile. The decedent, left no forced heirs and was living separate and apart from his wife, Mrs. Ellis Sophie von Grosschoppe Ruhl, by virtue of a judgment of separation from bed and board rendered by the 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany.
On October 3, 1963, the executor of the will opened the Succession of Joseph Louis Ruhl and the testament was duly probated. Subsequent to this filing, Mrs. Ruhl entered suit against the Succession of her late husband claiming to be a widow in necessitous circumstances and seeking the one-fourth portion provided in Civil Code Article 2382. Mrs. Ruhl had been isolated from the assets acquired by Mr. Ruhl by virtue of a marriage contract entered into by the parties prior to their wedding. By way of settlement of her claim against the estate, the Society voluntarily transferred to her certain property within the Parish of Orleans.
On August 13, 1965, these companion suits were initiated by sisters of the deceased seeking to have the will declared null and void and the property transferred by it returned to the Succession on the grounds that Mr. Ruhl was of unsound mind at the time of its confection and, alternatively, that he was unduly influenced by various acquaintances prior to its writing. Upon the death of Mrs. Lorena Ruhl Hillerich, one of the plaintiffs herein, her sons, Carl J. Hillerich and Louis J. Hillerich, were properly substituted for her.
Prior to the trial of this protracted litigation, the District Judge concluded that the pivotal issue for determination was the soundness of mind of the testator on the day of writing the will, and that the attacks upon the donations inter vivos would necessarily fall unless the testament was invalidated. Accordingly, the testimony was generally focused upon that question.
As expressed in his written reasons for judgment, the District Judge determined that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the testator lacked the soundness of mind necessary to write a valid will and that the evidence clearly preponderated to the contrary. We affirm that judgment.
The voluminous record compiled herein contains the testimony of some twenty or more persons from all walks of life whose familiarity with Mr. Ruhl ranged from extremely intimate to knowing him by reputation only. Consistent throughout the entirety of that lay testimony elicited, whether from a plaintiff or defense witness, is that Joseph Ruhl was a man of considerable intellect. The eccentricities of the man are related at length, but his intellectual capabilities do not seem to be questioned by those who knew him.
These witnesses portray an extraordinary man of considerable wealth whose unbending and fastidious habits were, unquestionably, unusual. We are able to surmise that his primary concern in life seem to be with his future in the hereafter, particularly in his later years. Upon retiring from the automobile business in 1939, Mr . Ruhl undertook to devote his time and his fortune to charitable interests. Apparently content to reap the benefits of his Orleans and St. Tammany Parish properties, he began a self-styled program of aid for the refugees of the war-torn European countries, particularly Germany. His charitable endeavors initially consisted of the collection of large amounts of clothes and supplies which he would ship abroad; later, however, this work took him personally to those countries for months at a time where he became involved with direct distribution to the poor. His work was widely recognized by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, under whose auspices he worked.
As early as 1939, Mr. Ruhl expressed his desire to leave all that he died possessed of to the Society which is a world-wide Roman Catholic organization dedicated to aiding the poor and personally directed by the Roman Pontiff. The record indicates that he never wavered in that resolution.
There are suggestions in the record that his efforts on behalf of the poor were, at times perhaps misguided, as it was demonstrated that possibly some of the items collected for their benefit could be of little use. Such actions could, at most, be characterized as errors in judgment, which seem to be greatly overshadowed by the considerable good actually done by the decedent.
While engaged in one of these charitable ventures abroad, Mr. Ruhl met, in Bremen, Germany, Ellis Sophie von Grosschoppe, a German citizen whose courtship is well documented in the record. We are told by Mrs. Ruhl, and by a review of their premarital correspondence, of a rather idyllicinitial relationship in which Mr. Ruhl seemingly wished to bestow upon her all that his wealth would allow, of a material nature. They were married on May 20, 1953 in Bremen and began their married life with much travel, gaiety, and in a style only experienced by the very wealthy.
Her future life at the St. Tammany Parish home was in bleak contrast. There, she was relegated to harsh circumstances exemplified by an unheated home, cooking on a wood stove, sleeping on an Army cot and the denial of an automobile which necessitated her, at times, walking considerable distances for groceries.
Without further belaboring the unfortunate details of this marriage, it will suffice to conclude, as previously noted, that Mrs . Ruhl eventually obtained a legal separation which was in effect at the time of the testator's demise.
Counsel for plaintiffs has relied considerably upon the above-described circumstances surrounding this marriage and the alleged undesirable change in Mr. Ruhl's attitude, it being strenuously urged that this marked difference is indicative of the onset of a mental derangement more fully explained in our discussion of the expert testimony here presented.
The testimony of those constantly in contact with Mr. Ruhl does not substantiate this premise. Business and professional associates testified that, up to the day of his death, he was a man of keen intellect, well informed on political affairs and current topics, and possessed of an astute business mind. Mr. Lawrence Goubler, a Vice President of Whitney Bank of New Orleans and Mr. Earl McGowan, the business manager of a New Orleans Chevrolet dealership, attested to the deceased's business acumen and clarity of thought, even in the years following the making of the will.
Mr. McGowan, who had been with the testator on the day of his death, stated that 'he always...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Succession of Riggio
...905, 253 So.2d 224 (1971), and the burden of proving lack of capacity rests on the party alleging it. Woods v. Society for Propagation of Faith, 251 So.2d 438 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1971), writ denied 259 La. 897, 253 So.2d 221 (1971). The degree of proof required to overcome the presumption of ......
-
Succession of Bush, 9745
...lack of testamentary capacity at the time that the will was executed rests upon the party alleging it. Woods v. Society for Propagation of Faith, 251 So.2d 438 (La.App.1st Cir. 1971), writ refused, 259 La. 897, 253 So.2d 221. The degree of proof required to overcome the presumption of testa......
-
Woods v. Society for Propagation of Faith of Archidiocese of New Orleans, Inc.
...Hillerich and Carl Hillerich applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Tammany. 251 So.2d 438. Writ denied. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in the judgment complained ...