Opinion
May 24, 1943.
Present — Close, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Lewis, JJ. [See post, p. 968.]
Proceeding in the Surrogate's Court of Suffolk County to probate a script executed by the decedent on April 11, 1940. Appeal by proponent from a decree denying probate upon the findings of a jury that the instrument was the product of undue influence and fraud. Cross-appeal by contestant from so much of the decree as denied her motion to assess the costs against the proponent personally and granted costs to the proponent, payable out of the estate. Decree modified on the law by striking therefrom the provisions awarding costs, disbursements and other expenses, aggregating $11,340.18, to the proponent, payable out of the estate. As thus modified, the decree, insofar as appealed from, is unanimously affirmed, with costs to the contestant, payable by the proponent personally. Costs may not be awarded to an unsuccessful proponent of a will where probate is denied on a ground that imputes to the proponent personally wrongful conduct in connection with the instrument propounded for probate. ( Matter of Marshall, 189 App. Div. 477; Matter of Jackson, 127 Misc. 187.) The script failed of probate because of undue influence and fraud practiced by the proponent personally. This determination, however, involved no reflection upon the draftsman of the will, because the finding of the court, supported by the evidence, was that the will was executed in compliance with the statute and that the decedent had testamentary capacity. The vice in the situation was not and could not be known to the draftsman under the peculiar circumstances herein, and there was no claim that he was a party to or aware of the effect of the conduct of the proponent upon the decedent.