Opinion · Wilaw Wisconsin
ESTATE OF HULETT, 6 Wis.2d 20 (1959)
94 N.W.2d 127
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Wilaw Wisconsin
- Jurisdiction
- Wilaw
- Date
- 1959-01-02
- Topic
- general
ESTATE OF HULETT, 6 Wis.2d 20 (1959) 94 N.W.2d 127 ESTATE OF HULETT: GRAFFIN, Appellant, v. HULETT,Executrix, Respondent.Supreme Court of Wisconsin.December 1, 1958 — January 2, 1959. APPEAL from a judgment of the county court of Milwaukee county: RUDOLPH J. MUDROCH, Judge. Reversed.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed ESTATE OF HULETT, 6 Wis.2d 20 (1959). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
ESTATE OF HULETT,6 Wis.2d 20(1959)
94 N.W.2d 127
ESTATE OF HULETT: GRAFFIN, Appellant, v. HULETT,
Executrix, Respondent.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
December 1, 1958 —
January 2, 1959.
Page 21
After the will of May 11, 1956, was admitted, Mrs. Geneva Graffin petitioned for probate of a codicil dated December 27, 1957. Mrs. Hulett objected on the grounds of insufficient execution, incompetency of the testator, and the fact that he was acting under undue influence.
On April 18, 1958, judgment was entered denying probate and reciting that the court found that the purported codicil was not executed in the manner provided by law in that neither of the subscribing witnesses saw the other sign as a subscribing witness. The court stated at the close of the hearing that it was satisfied that "the deceased was of sound mind and competent, under no duress or disability." Mrs. Graffin appealed.
The purported codicil is written in longhand upon two sheets of stationery bearing the letterhead of an air line. It reads as follows:
"Dec. 27, 1957
"Dear Mrs. Geneva Graffin:
"I have a safe-deposit box No. 252 in the Marshall Ilsley Bank on North Water street Milw. Wis.
"In case of my death. I want you to have the contents of the box. The box is in the name of Leon Lawson but it belongs to me as my signature will bear out.
"Yours, "Lynn M. Hulett.
Page 22"P.S. This is my latest and last `will' and is designed to give Mrs. Graffin the consideration she deserves.
"Lynn M. Hulett.
"Witness — Shelly Kohen Milwaukee, Wis. 5161 N. Hopkins "Witness — John F. Papia 447 N. Story pkwy. Milwaukee, Wis. "P.S. again! My signature in the bank "Leon Lawson."
A safety-deposit box, No. 252, was discovered by the executrix or her attorney at the Marine National Exchange Bank. The box was in the name of Mr. Lawson who was an associate of Mr. Hulett. The box contained $19,000. At the hearing the court limited the question before it to whether the purported codicil was properly executed.
It appeared that on the morning of December 27th Mr. and Mrs. Hulett, together with several other business associates of Mr. Hulett's and their wives, set out from Milwaukee for Nassau by airplane. The party included the Huletts, the Kohens, the Papias, and the Lawsons. They flew from Milwaukee to the Midway Airport in Chicago. While Mr. Kohen and Mr. Papia were waiting to have their reservations confirmed at a ticket counter, each of them at different times walked a few feet over to Mr. Hulett and signed the codicil.
Mr. Kohen testified that he recognized his signature; that the room in which he signed was the ticket office for the Eastern Air Lines and that it was about the size of the courtroom; that there were a lot of people in the room and that when Kohen signed, both Mr. Hulett and Mr. Papia were in the room; that Mr. Hulett called Mr. Kohen over and asked Kohen to sign the instrument; that Hulett did not tell Kohen what it was nor did Kohen know what it was. At one point Kohen testified that he did not see Hulett'sPage 23signature upon it when he signed; but on cross-examination he testified that he saw Mr. Hulett's signature before he signed. In any event he testified that Hulett had the piece of paper folded over; at the time that Kohen signed, Papia was about 10 feet away. Kohen then got back in line and he was about 10 feet away from Mr. Hulett after he returned to the line. The line consisted of eight or 10 people. Mr. Hulett was standing off to the side at a small table. Kohen did not see Hulett call Papia over, did not see Papia sign, and did not know at the time that Papia had signed as a witness. Kohen was in a position to see Papia sign if he had been interested in seeing that.
Papia testified that he recognized all three signatures; that Hulett asked Papia to sign the instrument; that Papia assumed that the instrument was a will; that at the time he signed, the words "witness" were written on it. At the time Papia signed it he could see Mr. Hulett and Mr. Kohen and that Mr. Kohen was then about seven to 10 feet away. He did not see Kohen sign the instrument. Papia saw Kohen's signature at the time Papia signed.
Mrs. Hulett testified that she knew nothing about the writing of the codicil until it was propounded in court. She testified that she and Mrs. Papia were in the ladies' room for a time while the men were checking the reservations.
Mrs. Hulett also testified that she had not wanted to go on the trip and that Mr. Hulett and she had had considerable discussion over the matter on the day and night previous; that Mr. Hulett had been drinking and had not gone to sleep; that she considered that Mr. Hulett was not competent that morning and that she thought that Mr. Hulett was under the influence of Mrs. Graffin. Mr. Papia and Mr. Kohen both testified that Mr. Hulett was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time they signed the codicil and that they considered him to be of sound mind.Page 24
Mrs. Graffin produced the codicil, the key to box 252, and an envelope. The envelope produced by Mrs. Graffin was addressed to her in the care of general delivery at Milwaukee and Mr. Hulett's business address was written in the upper left-hand corner. The letter was postmarked "Chicago, Illinois, Dec. 27, 1957 AMF Midway." The envelope was also stamped on the reverse side, "Milwaukee, Wis. Dec. 28, 1957 Gen. Del." She testified that on January 3, 1958, she received the codicil and the key in the sealed envelope. She received this letter at general delivery at the post office and Mr. Hulett was then accompanying her. Still in his company and at his direction she opened a safety-deposit box in her own name at the Bank of Commerce and placed the letter and its contents in that safety-deposit box. She removed it from the box on February 10, 1958.
For the respondent there were briefs byJohn L. Newman, attorney, andRobert F. KirstandA. L. Skolnikof counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument byMr. NewmanandMr. Skolnik.
Mrs. Hulett argues that, as found by the trial court, the witnesses did not subscribe in the presence of each other. She has not disputed Mrs. Graffin's claim as to the applicable law of Illinois, but contends that since Mrs. Graffin did not, in the trial court, give any notice of such claim, Mrs. Graffin cannot rely upon the Illinois law upon appeal.
1.Did the witnesses subscribe in the presence of eachother?Sec. 238.06, Wis. Stats., requires that a will be "attested and subscribed in the presence of the testator by two or more competent witnesses in the presence of each other." The defect asserted is that Mr. Kohen and Mr. Papia were not in the presence of each other when they attested and subscribed the codicil. No decision dealing with this precise question has been cited to us. There are, however, decisions in Wisconsin and elsewhere dealing with the question of when witnesses can be said to be in the presence of the testator when attesting and subscribing a will. InWill of Meurer(1878),44 Wis. 392,400, it was held that, "It is not necessary that the evidence should show that the testator in fact saw the witnesses subscribe their names; it is sufficient if he could have seen them from the place where he was sitting." In that case the witnesses signed in a room different from the one in which the testator was, but it would have been possible for the testator to see the witnesses through the open doorway if he had cared to see them.
In another case the testator was only a few feet away from the witnesses when the witnesses signed, but they were inPage 26another room where he could not see what was being done.Estate of Wilm(1923),182 Wis. 242,244,196 N.W. 255. It was said, "Even if the word `presence' is construed to mean within a sphere where the senses of the testator can inform him of the performance of the act, the present case would not come within the statute, for he could neither hear ordinary conversation in the kitchen nor see what was being done on the kitchen table from any point in the bedroom he occupied. It is true the distance from the kitchen table through the wall of the bedroom to the bed was perhaps less than 10 feet, but the solid wall prevented both the senses of hearing and seeing from ascertaining what was being done."
In the situation before us the two witnesses were close enough to each other to have met the standard of physical proximity stated in the two cases cited. Nevertheless, we hold that the conceptof presenceincludes a state of mind, as well as physical proximity. We think that under sec. 238.06, Wis. Stats., each witness must be aware that the other is signing. In 1 Page, Wills (lifetime ed.), p. 640, sec. 354, it is said, "A person in whose presence an act is done must be informed of what is taking place so that he actually knows what is being done; or the act is not done in his presence, no matter how close to him it may be done. A will is not signed in the presence of one who is attending to another matter and does not know what is taking place until he is told later."
The propounded codicil contained no attestation clause and the complete and positive testimony of the witnesses does not permit reliance upon any presumption of due execution. It was clearly established that when each witness signed the document the other was totally unaware of the signing; Kohen remained unaware of Papia's signing until long afterward. Therefore the requirements of sec. 238.06, Wis. Stats., were not fulfilled.Page 27
2.Has inquiry into the law of Illinois been waived?Portions of sec. 328.01, Wis. Stats., provide:
"(1) Every court of this state shall take judicial notice of the common law and statutes of every state, territory, and other jurisdiction of the United States.
"(2) The court may inform itself of such laws in such manner as it may deem proper, and the court may call upon counsel to aid it in obtaining such information. . . .
"(4) Any party may also present to the trial court any admissible evidence of such laws, but, to enable a party to offer evidence of the law in another jurisdiction or to ask that judicial notice be taken thereof, reasonable notice shall be given to the adverse parties either in the pleadings or otherwise."
Mrs. Hulett relies upon sub. (4) and points out that Mrs. Graffin did not give notice as required.
We are also mindful of the general principle that ordinarily a party will not he permitted to rely in the supreme court upon matters not brought to the attention of the trial court.
We conclude, however, that this is a situation in which the law of Illinois should be inquired into notwithstanding the statutory provision and general principle above referred to. It is not our place to speculate upon the relationships of the parties involved here, nor the motivation for the acts of the deceased. What is clear is that he only narrowly failed to execute the codicil in a manner which would be valid under sec. 238.06 Wis. Stats., that his acts a week later when he accompanied Mrs. Graffin to the post office and to the bank where she placed the codicil in a safety-deposit box were consistent with his intention as expressed in the codicil, and that he lived for a month thereafter and apparently did not avail himself of the opportunity to revoke it. It is also clear that if the manner of execution was valid in Illinois, a decision by us that Mrs. Graffin waived her right to have the law of Illinois applied would thwart a valid will. "This courtPage 28has often held that one of the most important rights that a normal adult person has is his power to dispose of his property by will as he chooses. In fact this right has been referred to by this court as a sacred right. . . . It is the policy of courts to sustain a will as legally executed if it is possible to do so consistently with the requirements of the statute."Estate of White(1956),273 Wis. 212,214,77 N.W.2d 404. It has been held that there is a public policy involved in the establishment of every legally executed will and that the court owes a duty to the public even if not to the testator to adjudicate as to the legal existence of a propounded document as a will.Will of Dardis(1908),135 Wis. 457,464,115 N.W. 332. Accordingly, we think that the duty of the court toward the public and the deceased, if not toward the parties in interest, requires consideration of whether the codicil not executed in compliance with sec. 238.06 was, nevertheless, valid under sec. 238.07 because executed in the manner prescribed in Illinois.
3.Determination of the applicable Illinois law.It does appear that ch. 3, sec. 194, Smith-Hurd Illinois Anno. Stats. (perm. ed.), prescribing the manner of execution of a will requires that two or more witnesses attest the will in the presence of the testator, but does not specify that the witnesses subscribe in the presence of each other. Appellant has cited several Illinois cases, includingEstate of Elkerton(1942),380 Ill. 394,44 N.E.2d 148, which seem to hold that witnesses need not subscribe in each other's presence. We think, however, as a matter of policy that the question of whether the execution of the propounded codicil fulfilled in all respects the requirements of the Illinois statutes should be determined in the trial court.
Because this issue has not been determined in the trial court and because of the great respect always accorded by this court to the right to make a will, we exercise our discretionPage 29under sec.251.09, Stats., and reverse the judgment of the county court so that the manner of execution of the propounded codicil may be considered under the law of Illinois, the state where it was signed.By the Court.— Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion.