Roblin v. Shantz
1957 Ore. LEXIS 267, 210 Or. 371, 311 P.2d 459 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To invalidate a will on the grounds of fraud, a contestant must prove that a beneficiary made a statement that was not only false but was also known to be false and made with the specific intent to deceive the testator, causing the testator to act in reliance upon it. Mere hyperbole or emotional exaggeration made without deceptive intent is insufficient to constitute fraud.
Facts:
- Charles Ernest Roblin and his son, Charles Dana Roblin, had a strained relationship, which included the father once ordering the son out of his room in a nursing home.
- The father, Mr. Roblin, had moved out of the family home in 1950 due to aggravation over his wife, Ollie M. Roblin, sending money to their son, Charles.
- Ollie M. Roblin died on July 8, 1953.
- Upon her death, Ollie Roblin's will divided her probate estate of approximately $1,581 equally between her son, Charles, and her daughter, Ruth Shantz.
- In addition to his share of the probate estate, Charles also received approximately $12,301 from non-probate property that he had held jointly with his mother.
- Shortly after their mother's death, Ruth told her father that her mother had 'left everything to Charlie' except for a ring.
- Immediately upon hearing this statement, Mr. Roblin instructed Ruth to procure a lawyer for him.
- The following day, on July 9, 1953, Mr. Roblin executed a new will that left one dollar to his son, Charles, and the remainder of his estate to his daughter, Ruth. He died less than two months later.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Dana Roblin, the contestant, initiated proceedings in the Circuit Court for Marion County (a trial court) to contest the will of his father, Charles Ernest Roblin.
- The proponent of the will was his sister, Ruth Emily Shantz.
- The Circuit Court dismissed the contest and issued a decree ordering that the will be admitted to probate.
- Charles Dana Roblin, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decree to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a beneficiary's exaggerated statement to a testator regarding the disposition of another person's estate constitute fraud sufficient to invalidate the testator's will, when the statement was made out of disappointment rather than a clear intent to deceive?
Opinions:
Majority - Rossman, J.
No, a beneficiary's exaggerated statement to a testator does not constitute fraud sufficient to invalidate a will if it lacks the specific intent to deceive. To prove fraud, a contestant must show that the statement was false, known by the maker to be false, material, made with the intent to deceive, and that it actually deceived the testator and caused him to act in reliance on it. The court found that Ruth's statement, while a 'hyperbole,' was an emotional exaggeration born of disappointment over the vast disparity in what she and her brother received from their mother's assets. The court was unwilling to equate conscious exaggeration with a fraudulent intent to deceive, noting that people often exaggerate to communicate a belief forcefully, not to mislead. Furthermore, the court questioned causation, suggesting that given the pre-existing poor relationship between Mr. Roblin and his son, the father may have disinherited him regardless, and Ruth's statement merely provided the 'occasion' for doing so rather than the legal cause.
Analysis:
This decision refines the standard for proving fraud in a will contest by distinguishing between literal falsity and fraudulent intent. It establishes that courts will examine the speaker's subjective state of mind, allowing for emotional exaggeration or hyperbole, which may not rise to the level of actionable fraud. The ruling heightens the burden on will contestants, who must now prove not only that a statement influencing the testator was false, but that it was made with a specific, malicious intent to deceive. This protects testamentary freedom by making it more difficult to overturn a will based on emotionally charged family communications that are not technically precise.
