303 Mont. 335, 15 P.3d 931
Charles Kuralt and Patricia Elizabeth Shannon maintained a long-term intimate personal relationship that they kept secret from Kuralt's wife, Petie.1 Over nearly thirty years, Kuralt provided primary financial support to Shannon and her three children, transferred a home in Ireland to her, and established close relationships with her family.2 In 1985, Kuralt purchased a 20-acre parcel along the Big Hole River in Madison County, Montana, where he and Shannon built a cabin.3 Subsequently, in 1987, he acquired two adjoining parcels creating approximately 90 acres total.4
On May 3, 1989, Kuralt executed a holographic will bequeathing to Shannon all his interest in the land, buildings, furnishings, and personal belongings on Burma Road, Twin Bridges, Montana.5 Kuralt mailed a copy of this will to Shannon.6 On May 4, 1994, Kuralt executed a formal will in New York City prepared with counsel that did not mention the Montana property and named his wife and two children as beneficiaries.7 Shannon had no knowledge of the 1994 will until these proceedings began.8
On April 9, 1997, Kuralt deeded the original 20-acre parcel with the cabin to Shannon in a transaction disguised as a sale, supplying the purchase price himself.9 Shannon then sent Kuralt a blank buy-sell form at his request to convey the remaining 90 acres similarly, with plans to complete the transfer in September 1997.10 On June 18, 1997, while hospitalized in New York, Kuralt wrote a letter to Shannon enclosing checks for $8,000 and $9,000, stating he would have the lawyer visit to ensure she inherited the rest of the Montana property if necessary.11
Shannon petitioned to probate the June 18, 1997 letter as a holographic codicil to the 1994 will. The Estate opposed, leading the District Court to grant partial summary judgment to the Estate on May 26, 1998.12 Shannon appealed, resulting in reversal and remand by this Court in Kuralt I for trial on disputed facts.13 After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court found the letter a valid holographic codicil and entered judgment for Shannon, from which the Estate now appeals.14
Whether the District Court erred when it found that the June 18, 1997 letter expressed a present testamentary intent to transfer property in Madison County?15
Montana courts are guided by the bedrock principle of honoring the intent of the testator.16 The question of whether a letter contains the necessary animus testandi becomes an issue suitable for resolution by the trier of fact.17 The standard of review of a district court's findings of fact is whether they are clearly erroneous.18 A district court's findings are clearly erroneous if they are not supported by substantial credible evidence, if the trial court has misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if a review of the record leaves the reviewing court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.19
No. The Supreme Court of Montana determined that the record supports the District Court's finding that the June 18, 1997 letter expressed Kuralt's intent to effect a posthumous transfer of his Montana property to Shannon.20 The Supreme Court of Montana observed that Kuralt and Shannon enjoyed a long, close personal relationship which continued up to the last letter Kuralt wrote Shannon on June 18, 1997, in which he enclosed checks to her in the amounts of $8000 and $9000.21 The Supreme Court of Montana noted that the District Court focused on the last few months of Kuralt's life to find that the letter demonstrated his testamentary intent.22 The Supreme Court of Montana found that the conveyance of the 20-acre parcel was for no real consideration. Extrinsic evidence showed that Kuralt intended to convey the remainder of the Montana property to Shannon in a similar fashion. This provides substantial factual support for the District Court's determination that Kuralt intended that Shannon have the rest of the Montana property.23
The Supreme Court of Montana concluded that the June 18, 1997 letter expressed Kuralt's desire that Shannon inherit the remainder of the Montana property.24 The use of the term inherit reflected his intention to make a posthumous disposition of the property.25 Therefore, the District Court's findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous.26
The Supreme Court of Montana concluded that the District Court did not err when it found that the letter dated June 18, 1997 expressed a present testamentary intent to transfer property in Madison County to Patricia Shannon.27
Whether the District Court erred when it held that the letter was a codicil without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard on that issue?28
A letter meets the threshold requirements for a valid holographic will. When the second will does not make a complete disposition of the testator's estate, the second will is more in the nature of a codicil to the first will.29
No. The Supreme Court of Montana agreed with the District Court's conclusion that the June 18, 1997 holograph was a codicil to Kuralt's 1994 formal will.30 The Supreme Court of Montana determined that the June 18, 1997 letter met the threshold requirements for a valid holographic will.31 It was a codicil as a matter of law because it made a specific bequest of the Montana property and did not purport to bequeath the entirety of the estate.32 The Supreme Court of Montana saw no evidence that the Estate had any less opportunity to argue this issue in the District Court than it had on appeal.33
The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the judgment of the District Court on the codicil issue.34