Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitwillequitable relief
contractplaintiffdefendantattorneyappealtrialtestimonywillequitable relief

Related Cases

Matter of Estate of Ottmar, Not Reported in Pac. Rptr., 1 Wash.App.2d 1044, 2017 WL 6343646
View Case »
Chase v. Bowen, 771 So.2d 1181, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D2400
View Case »
Gilbert v. Gaybrick, 195 Md. 297, 73 A.2d 482
View Case »
Prowitt v. Rodman, 10 Tiffany 42, 37 N.Y. 42, 1867 WL 6500, 4 Transc.App. 412
View Case »
Estate of Busch v. Ferrell-Duncan Clinic, Inc., 700 S.W.2d 86, 56 A.L.R.4th 451
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Eikmeier v. Eikmeier, 174 Kan. 71, 254 P.2d 236

Facts

Fred and Mary D. Eikmeier, the parents of three children, executed separate wills in 1948 and 1949, which provided for life estates in each other's property and specified that their children would inherit the remaining property after their deaths. After Mary D.'s death in 1950, Fred married Mary A. and conveyed the property in question to her, which led Lee to file a lawsuit claiming his rights as a beneficiary under the alleged agreement between his parents. The court examined the history of property transfers and the intentions behind the wills to determine the validity of Lee's claims.

Fred and Mary D. Eikmeier, husband and wife, were pioneer residents of Pawnee County. They were the parents of three children, Lee, plaintiff herein, Paul and Esther, who in 1944 were 45, 40 and 37 years of age, respectively. Fred and Mary D. were 69 years of age.

Issue

Did the court err in admitting extrinsic evidence to establish the existence of an oral agreement for mutual and reciprocal wills between Fred and Mary D. Eikmeier, and did such an agreement entitle Lee Eikmeier to equitable relief?

The court did not err (1) in the admission of evidence, (2) in finding that the separate mutual and reciprocal wills were contractual, and (3) in granting equitable relief.

Rule

Extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that separate wills, which are mutual and reciprocal in their bequests and devises, were executed in pursuance of an agreement between the testators, despite the absence of recitals in the wills designating or referring to such agreement.

Extrinsic evidence is admissible in connection with the instruments themselves to show that separate wills, which are mutual and reciprocal in their bequests and devises, were executed in pursuance of an agreement between the testators, notwithstanding the absence of recitals in the wills designating or referring to such agreement.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining the evidence presented, which included the history of property transfers, the execution of the wills, and the intentions of Fred and Mary D. Eikmeier. The court found that the actions of the parents indicated a clear agreement regarding the distribution of their property, and that the wills were executed in accordance with this agreement. The court concluded that the evidence supported the existence of a contractual relationship between the testators, which justified granting Lee equitable relief.

The trial court heard testimony by numerous witnesses, including the attorney who prepared the deeds of 1944, 1945 and 1946 and the 1948 wills. It also hears testimony by the attorney who prepared the 1949 wills and the deed from Fred to Mary A. We will not detail this evidence. We have examined it and are satisfied that the trial court, both from it and all of the other surrounding facts and circumstances inherent in the case, was justified in finding as it did.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Lee Eikmeier, ruling that he was entitled to the property as specified in his father's will, and that the deed to Mary A. was invalid as it conflicted with the terms of the will.

The judgment of the lower court was eminently correct and it is in all respects affirmed.

Who won?

Lee Eikmeier prevailed in the case because the court found that the evidence supported his claim of an oral agreement between his parents regarding the distribution of their property, which was upheld despite the subsequent actions of his father.

Judgment was for plaintiff and defendants have appealed.

You must be