Sangster v. Dillard

925 P.2d 929 (1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Dillard (D) was Evelyn's only child. Plaintiff (P) is D's daughter by his first marriage and Evelyn's granddaughter. P contested Evelyn's will which named D as the sole beneficiary and P claimed that her uncle, her siblings and herself should have been the beneficiaries. Evelyn had left D's father when D was an infant and had no relations to D until he went to live with her at the age of 15. In 1975, Evelyn, her second husband, D and his second wife signed a contract to purchase 160 acres of land on Mount Hood. The trial court found that Evelyn put up all the down payment. When her second husband retired, they moved to the property and lived with D, his second wife, and their two children. There was increasing arguments over the business affairs of the resort and the increasing loans of up to $400,000 for improvements and operation of the resort. There was no record of D paying any monies back to Evelyn. Evelyn made a will in 1988 that disinherited D leaving her entire estate to her second husband or her brother and D's children from his first marriage. Evelyn's husband died first, and she remained on the resort, but things were very strained but nonetheless cordial. Eventually, Evelyn's health began to fade and was exclusively dependent on D. D eventually informed his attorney that Evelyn wanted to make a will leaving him all her property. D's attorney told D that Evelyn's attorney should draft it, but D insisted that his attorney do the work. D then drove Evelyn to his attorney's office, and she was in a bad state of affairs looking ill and weak. Evelyn executed the will, but there was no indication that she was advised by anyone nor did she seek independent advice regarding the will. No one knew of the will other than D, the attorney, his secretary, and Evelyn. Evelyn died a month later. D filed a petition to have the will probated, and P then filed a petition contesting the recent will and seeking to have the 1988 will admitted. The trial court voided the more recent will and admitted the 1988 will.