Caseflicks

West Virginia Supreme Court • 1983

Davis v. KB & T CO.

309 S.E.2d 45 | 172 W. Va. 546 | 1983 W. Va. LEXIS 601

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that matching spousal wills are not irrevocable without proof of a contract, and that a bona fide revocable living trust does not automatically become part of a decedent’s probate estate merely because it limits a surviving spouse’s statutory share.

Background

David T. Farley and Pennsy Davis Farley, a childless married couple, executed substantially identical wills in 1973. Each will left the maker’s entire estate to the other spouse. David’s will was prepared by an attorney; several months later, David typed Pennsy’s will using his own as a model. The wills were signed more than four months apart and witnessed by different people.

In 1976, Pennsy suffered a severe mental collapse and was institutionalized. Soon afterward, David suffered several heart attacks. After leaving the hospital, David created a revocable inter vivos trust with Kanawha Banking & Trust Company as trustee and executed a new will. He transferred about $145,000 in securities, cash, and certificates of deposit to the trust and designated the trustee as beneficiary of life-insurance policies worth about $27,000. The trust authorized the trustee to provide for David and Pennsy during incapacity and, after David’s death, to use income for Pennsy’s comfortable support, maintenance, and medical care if her other income proved inadequate. At the death of both spouses, the trust remainder would pass to designated beneficiaries.

David died less than two months later. His probate estate contained only about $12,000 in assets. Dorothy Evelyn Davis, acting as committee for the incompetent Pennsy, challenged the 1976 will and trust. She argued that the 1973 wills were irrevocable mutual wills and, alternatively, that the trust assets remained subject to Pennsy’s statutory marital share. The Circuit Court of Kanawha County rejected both arguments, found David competent when he executed the 1976 documents, and dismissed the action. Pennsy’s representative appealed the mutual-wills and trust issues.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Farleys’ substantially identical 1973 wills were mutual and irrevocable, preventing David Farley from revoking his will after Pennsy became incompetent.

Holding

No. The wills were reciprocal, but the evidence did not establish the contract or common understanding necessary to make them mutual and irrevocable.

Reasoning

Reciprocal wills merely contain corresponding testamentary provisions, such as each spouse leaving property to the other. The Farleys’ 1973 wills met that definition because each spouse named the other as sole beneficiary under otherwise identical plans. But mutual wills require more: an agreement, supported by each party’s promise, to dispose of property in a specified way.

West Virginia precedent makes clear that reciprocal provisions alone do not prove a contractual agreement to make mutual wills. Although reciprocal provisions can be evidence of an agreement, the proponent must ordinarily identify additional circumstances that clearly imply a shared and binding understanding.

The circuit court found no such agreement, and that factual finding could be disturbed only if it lacked evidentiary support or contradicted the clear preponderance of the evidence. Nothing in the wills referred to a contract or promised irrevocability. They were signed more than four months apart, had different witnesses, and testimony from those present for Pennsy’s execution revealed no agreement or common understanding.

The record instead showed that David typed Pennsy’s will by using his own will as a model. That explained the similarity between the documents without establishing a bargain between the spouses. Because the 1973 wills were not mutual wills, David remained free to revoke his 1973 will during his lifetime.

Issue #2

Whether David Farley’s revocable inter vivos trust was illusory, testamentary, or a fraud on Pennsy’s statutory marital share, so that the transferred assets should be treated as part of his probate estate.

Holding

No. The trust was a bona fide inter vivos transfer, not a sham or fraud on Pennsy’s marital rights, and its assets were not part of David’s probate estate.

Reasoning

A settlor’s retention of a life interest, a power to amend or revoke, or authority to influence trust administration does not by itself make an inter vivos trust testamentary or invalid. A valid present trust may create beneficial interests in persons other than the settlor even though the settlor retains substantial powers during life. The Court’s prior decision in Spangler likewise recognized that a reserved revocation power does not negate a valid trust if it is not exercised before death.

The Court declined to adopt a rigid rule that a transfer intended to limit a spouse’s statutory share is automatically fraudulent. Unlike Wallace v. Wallace, which involved a transfer made to defeat a spouse’s property claims in a contemplated divorce, this case involved a trust and a surviving spouse’s statutory estate rights. The proper approach is flexible and depends on all the circumstances and equities of the particular case.

The trust was genuine rather than illusory. An independent corporate trustee, not David, held legal title and had sole discretion to manage the assets. David actually transferred and delivered the securities, cash, and other property to the trustee. The arrangement therefore did not leave David holding both legal and equitable title while merely disguising his continued ownership.

The trust also substantially protected both spouses against the practical risks they faced. During David’s lifetime, the trustee could use income or principal for either spouse’s support in the event of illness, age, or incapacity. After David’s death, the trustee was directed to provide Pennsy with whatever net income was necessary for her comfortable support, maintenance, and medical and hospital care.

The surrounding facts supported the conclusion that David acted to arrange care during a period of genuine medical crisis, rather than to defeat Pennsy’s marital rights. Pennsy had suffered a complete mental breakdown, David had endured several heart attacks, and David was concerned about management of their affairs if he became further incapacitated. The revocation provision also appeared to have been included on the drafting attorney’s recommendation, not as part of a scheme to retain disguised ownership.

Finally, Pennsy was independently wealthy, with an estate of roughly $700,000 and ownership of the marital residence. The trust’s disposition—David’s property ultimately going to his family and Pennsy’s property to hers—was consistent with David’s stated testamentary plan and was not contrary to any positive rule of law. On these facts, treating the trust assets as outside the probate estate was equitable.