IN RE ESTATE OF KURALT

15 P.3d 931 (Mont. 2000).


Procedure:Testator's longtime personal companion challenged testamentary disposition of testator's real and personal property. On remand reversing summary judgment for estate, the District Court, entered judgment for companion, finding that testator executed a valid holographic codicil transferring property to companion. Estate appealed

Facts:Facts. Charles Kuralt,, had a long-term romance with Pat Shannon after meeting her for one of the "On the Road" stories. Because he was married, he kept his relationship with Shannon secret. Over the next 30 years, Kuralt spoke to Shannon often and provided financial support, including a vacation home in Ireland. He also had a close, personal relationship with Shannon's children. In 1985, Shannon moved to a cabin thai she and Kurall had built for [hem on 20 acres in Moniana. Kuralt later purchased land lo the norm and south of the Moniana property, resulting in a 90-acre parcel. In 1989, Kuralt executed a holographic will bequeathing all of the Montana property, including furnishings and personal belongings, to Shannon and sent a copy toher. In 1994. he executed a formal will, making his wife and children the beneficiaries, but he did not specifically mention any real property. Kuralt deeded the original 20 acres with the cabin to Shannon in 1997, and he disguised the transaction as a sale, supplying the "purchase price" to Shannon before the transfer. AfteOe new deed was filed. Shannon sent Kuralt a blank buy-sell form so the remaining property could be conveyed in the same way. This transfer was to take place at (he cabin in four months, but Kurall was hospitalized before the two could meet. Two weeks before his death in 1997, Kurall wrote a letter to Shannon, assuring her that she would inherit the Montana property. Kuralt failed, however, to contact an attorney to make those arrangements.

Issue: Whether a Court should honor the intent of the testator based on the facts and circumstances of his actions?

Holding: The Supreme Court, Trieweiler, J., held that: (1) evidence supported finding that testator's letter to companion expressed his intent to effect posthumous transfer of property to companion, and (2) letter was a codicil as a matter of law.
Affirmed.

Analysis:Montana courts are guided by the principle of honoring the intent of the testator. In this case. Kuralt and Shannon enjoyed a long, close personal relationship. Kuralt also had a family-like relationship with Shannon's children and gave them significant financial support. Kurall conveyed the 20-aerc parcel of land in Moniana to Shannon for no real consideration, and there was extrinsic evidence that he intended to transfer the remainder of the Montana property to her in a similar manner. However, his illness thwarted his plans. Kuralt died two weeks after writing the letter expressing his desire that Shannon inherit (he remainder of the Moniana property. It was writlen in extremis. Furthermore, he stressed his intention to make a posthumous disposition of the property by underling the word "inherit" in his letter.