Nugent v. Wright

Singley, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is the second visit of the estate of Aldace Freeman Walker to this Court. In the first case, Suzanne Walker Wright, Mr. Walker’s daughter, had appealed from an order of the Orphans’ Court for Talbot County, admitting to probate the unwitnessed holographic will of Mr. Walker. At the time the will was executed and at the time of his death, Mr. Walker was domiciled in the District of Columbia, but owned real estate in Talbot County, Maryland.

The will itself had been executed in Virginia, however, and was valid under the law of that commonwealth. The order admitting the will to probate was affirmed by the Court of Special Appeals, Wright v. Nugent, 23 Md. App. 337 , 328 A. 2d 362 (1974) and by us, Wright v. Nugent, 275 Md. 290 , 338 A. 2d 898 (1975). At the time, a petition and caveat was pending in Talbot County. ⁶¹⁶ This case is an appeal by George Ainslie Nugent, Mr. Walker’s personal representative, from an order of the Orphans’ Court for Talbot County framing 13 issues, three of which had been submitted by Mr. Nugent and 10 of which had been submitted by Mrs. Wright, for submission to the Circuit Court for trial, in response to Mrs. Wright’s petition and caveat. We granted certiorari before the case was heard in the Court of Special Appeals.

Preliminarily, we note that an appeal, pursuant to Maryland Code (1974), Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article § 12-501, will lie from an order granting or refusing to grant issues, Schlossberg v. Schlossberg, 275 Md. 600, 609-10 , 343 A. 2d 234, 240-41 (1975); Holland v. Enright, 169 Md. 390, 397 , 181 A. 836, 839 (1935); 1 P. Sykes, Probate Law and Practice § 243 at 252 (1956). The issues framed by the orphans’ court are set out below. Issues (1), (2) and (3) had been suggested by Mr. Nugent; Issues (4) through (13), by Mrs. Wright: “(1) Was Aldace Freeman Walker legally competent to make a Will on April 8, 1973? “(2) Is the writing filed in the Petition for Probate in this proceeding, dated April 8, 1973, wholly in the handwriting of Aldace Freeman Walker? “(3) Is the writing filed in the Petition for Probate in this proceeding, dated April 8, 1973, signed by Aldace Freeman Walker? “(4) Was the decedent, Aldace Freeman Walker, suffering from a temporary or permanent mental illness at the time of the execution of the paper writing dated April 8, 1973, purported to be the Last Will and Testament of the decedent to such an extent as to invalidate such paper writing as a Will? “(5) Was the decedent under any psychotic reactions marked by severe mood swings, reactions to supposed conspiracies against him, illusions, ⁶¹⁷ delusions and hallucinations, on April 8, 1973, to such an extent as to invalidate such paper writing as a Will? “(6) Was the paper writing dated April 8, 1973, purported to be the Last Will and Testament of Aldace Freeman Walker, executed while he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol to such an extent as to invalidate such paper writing as a Will? “(7) Was George Ainslie Nugent in a confidential relationship to Aldace Freeman Walker? “(8) If the answer to Issue No. 7 is ‘yes’, was the paper dated April 8, 1973, purported to be the Last Will and Testament of Aldace Freeman Walker, procured by fraud or undue influence exercised upon him by George Ainslie Nugent? “(9) Was Aldace Freeman Walker able to understand and comprehend the legal effect of the said paper writing dated April 8,1973, purported to be his Last Will and Testament? “(10) Was the paper writing dated April 8, 1973, purported to be the Last Will and Testament of Aldace Freeman Walker, executed in the manner prescribed by the Laws of the State of Virginia pursuant to which the said paper writing was offered for probate in the Orphans’ Court of Talbot County under the provisions of Section 5-103 of Article 93? “(11) Did Aldace Freeman Walker knowing as a fact that the 1973 paper writing was unwitnessed, deliberately refuse to avail himself of opportunities to have the writing witnessed after its making with the intent that it not be considered as a will? “(12) Did Aldace Freeman Walker intend to die intestate? “(13) Is the said paper writing dated April 8, 1973, a valid Last Will and Testament of Aldace Freeman Walker?” ⁶¹⁸ Mr. Nugent’s appeal is from that part of the order which granted Issues (4) through (13). No appeal was entered by Mrs. Wright, nor did she file a brief or participate in the argument of the case.

Mr. Nugent raises five questions: “I. Was it proper for the Orphans’ Court to submit pure questions of law for determination by the Circuit Court? “II. Was it proper for the Orphans’ Court to submit any questions regarding the ‘intention’ of the testator to make a will when the testamentary character of the will was clear and certain on its face? “III. Should the Orphans’ Court have submitted five issues relating to the competency of the testator? “IV. Where the caveator had raised no question of ‘fraud’, should an issue regarding fraud have been submitted to the Circuit Court? “V. Was it proper to submit issues regarding ‘undue influence’ which invaded the province of the Circuit Court?” The practice of transferring issues in a caveat case to a law court for trial is rooted in antiquity, P. Sykes, Contest of Wills in Maryland § 21 at 29 (1941).

Prior to the revision of Code (1957), Art. 93, effective 1 January 1970, our law respecting decedent’s estates, the statutory provisions relating to caveat proceedings were numerous and complex. These were replaced in 1970 by a single provision, later recodified in Code (1974), Estates and Trusts Article § 5-207, which provides in relevant part: “(a) Filing petition to caveat. — Regardless of whether a petition for probate has been filed, a verified petition to caveat a will may be filed at any time prior to the expiration of six months following the first appointment of a personal representative under a will, even if there be a subsequent judicial ⁶¹⁹ probate or appointment of a personal representative. If a different will is offered subsequently for probate, a petition to caveat the later offered will may be filed at a time within the later to occur of “(1) Three months after the later probate, or “(2) Six months after the first appointment of a personal representative of a probated will.” The Comment of the Governor’s Commission to Review and Revise the Testamentary Law of Maryland (the Henderson Commission), after noting that a “single, simple procedure” had been substituted for the provisions of the prior law, continues: “[n]o change in the prior law respecting such procedure [for the hearing of a caveat case] is intended.... It [the Commission] has assumed, and intends, that the prior law of Maryland will continue to apply....” By now, the rules under which issues are framed have been precisely delineated: “An issue is a single, certain and material point arising out of the allegations of plaintiff and defendant.

It is formed by affirming a matter on one side and denying it on the other. The issues must be couched in plain and easily understood terms, and they must distinctly and clearly present the point on which the caveators desire the jury to pass.” P. Sykes, Contest of Wills in Maryland § 21 at 30 (1941). Issues involve questions of fact in dispute between the parties, to be ascertained from the petition and answer, so framed that the jury can give but a single answer, Friedel v. Blechman, 250 Md. 270, 288 , 242 A. 2d 103, 113 (1968); Hamill v. Hamill, 162 Md. 159, 168 , 159 A. 247, 250 (1932); Bridge v. Dillard, 104 Md. 411, 421 , 65 A. 10, 12 (1906); Taylor v. Nuttle, 62 Md. 342, 344 (1884). There should be but one issue ⁶²⁰ as to each question, Zinn v. Imperial Council, 253 Md. 183, 196 , 252 A. 2d 76, 84 (1969); Sumwalt v. Sumwalt, 52 Md. 338, 348 (1879).

It is impermissible to submit an issue which poses a pure question of law, Vickers v. Starcher, 175 Md. 522, 530 , 2 A. 2d 678, 682 (1938), but an issue which raises a mixed question of law and fact may be submitted to a jury under proper instructions, McSherry v. Wimsatt, 116 Md. 652, 654 , 82 A. 451, 451-52 (1911); Connelly v. Beall, 77 Md. 116, 118-19 , 26 A. 408, 409 (1893). Keeping this broad overview in mind, we now turn to Mr. Nugent’s six contentions: (i) It was error for the orphans’ court to submit issues raising un mixed questions of law. Issue (10) — “Was the paper writing dated April 8, 1973, purported to be the Last Will and Testament of Aldace Freeman Walker, executed in the manner prescribed by the Laws of the State of Virginia pursuant to which the said paper writing was offered for probate in the Orphans’ Court of Talbot County under the provisions of Section 5-103 of Article 93?” Issue (13) — “Is the said paper writing dated April 8, 1973, a valid Last Will and Testament of Aldace Freeman Walker?” These issues clearly raise pure questions of law. This is not only unwarranted by §