## Facts

- Duncan R. Danforth, a 75-year-old retired physician, executed a will in 1978 that divided his estate between two of his children, Frank Danforth and Janette Barb.
- On August 13, 1980, a few hours before marrying Loretta Ollison (age 21), Duncan executed a new will revoking the 1978 will and giving Loretta more than one-half of an estate valued at about \$1.5 million.
- Around the time of the marriage, Loretta lived with her boyfriend, Mike Stith, at her mother’s house.
- On August 12, 1980, Loretta and Stith met with Harrison Williams and Jack Peary to plan Duncan’s murder, including a plan to kill him at the hotel where Duncan and Loretta were to spend their wedding night.
- After the wedding, Duncan and Loretta went to the hotel, but the planned killing did not occur that night. Duncan later complained the “honeymoon” was unsatisfactory because Loretta refused intimacy and repeatedly tried to leave the room.
- Duncan returned home without Loretta and told Frank he would annul the marriage if Loretta would not come live with him.
- On August 17, 1980, Duncan left to go to Loretta’s mother’s house to discuss the marriage and was later found shot to death on a rural road in Camden County, Missouri.
- The probate court admitted the 1980 will, granted letters testamentary under it, and rejected the 1978 will.
- Frank and Janette timely filed a circuit-court will contest alleging the 1980 will was procured by fraud—specifically that Loretta falsely represented that she loved Duncan and intended a marital relationship to induce him to execute the 1980 will.
- At trial, the contestants introduced evidence of Loretta’s conduct surrounding plans to kill Duncan as proof of her intent and the alleged fraudulent scheme.
- The jury found the 1980 will was procured by fraud, set it aside, and established the 1978 will as Duncan’s last will and testament.
- Loretta appealed, challenging (among other points) subject-matter jurisdiction, the effect of a partial distribution to Frank, the adequacy of the fraud pleadings, the sufficiency of the evidence, admission of murder-plot evidence, and certain jury instructions.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a statutory will contest filed after the 1980 will was admitted to probate.
2. Whether a partial distribution to Frank barred the will contest by election, estoppel, or similar equitable theories.
3. Whether the petition alleged fraud with sufficient particularity to state a claim that the 1980 will was procured by fraud.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit fraudulent procurement to the jury, or whether a directed verdict upholding the 1980 will was required.
5. Whether evidence of Loretta’s involvement in planning Duncan’s murder was inadmissible as an unpleaded theory, irrelevant, hearsay, or unfairly prejudicial.
6. Whether the challenged jury instructions warranted reversal.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment setting aside the 1980 will and reinstating the 1978 will.
- The circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the statutory will contest.
- The partial distribution proceedings did not bar Frank and Janette from pursuing the will contest.
- The contestants’ petition pleaded fraud with adequate detail to give notice of the misrepresentation theory.
- The trial court properly denied a directed verdict because the evidence supported a jury finding that Loretta fraudulently induced the 1980 will.
- Evidence concerning Loretta’s role in planning Duncan’s murder was admissible as probative of her intent and the alleged fraudulent plan to obtain the estate through the will.
- The jury instructions, considered as a whole, did not require reversal.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory will contest filed after probate of a will is within the circuit court’s authority when the statutory prerequisites are met.
- Fraud in procurement of a will may be shown by a deliberate misrepresentation that induces a testamentary disposition; a false representation of present intent or state of mind (such as professed love and intent to be a spouse) can constitute fraud if relied upon.
- Fraud must be pleaded with reasonable particularity, but it is enough to allege the substance of the false representation, the speaker’s intent, the testator’s reliance, and the resulting change in the will.
- Fraud in will procurement may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including the surrounding relationship, timing, motive, and conduct inconsistent with the representation made to the testator.
- Evidence of related wrongful acts may be admissible when it tends to prove intent, plan, or motive connected to the alleged fraudulent procurement, even if the wrongful act is not pleaded as a separate civil claim.
- Receipt of a partial distribution does not automatically constitute ratification of a will or bar a will contest absent a clear, inconsistent election or other basis for estoppel.

## Conclusion

Danforth v. Danforth affirmed a jury verdict invalidating a will on fraudulent procurement where the evidence supported that the beneficiary-spouse falsely claimed love and marital commitment to induce a will largely favoring her, and the trial court properly admitted evidence of her participation in plans to murder the testator as proof of her intent and the broader fraudulent scheme.


Danforth v. Danforth, 663 S.W.2d 288 (1983)