The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed that a disinheritance clause in a will was ineffective, allowing an estate to pass via intestacy to a half-brother’s heirs residing in Germany, whose relationship was proven by a 1922 steamship passenger document, and barred relitigation of the clause’s meaning under the “law of the case” doctrine.
The dusty plains of Haakon County, South Dakota, seem an unlikely stage for a complex legal drama involving international heirs, a nearly century-old steamship document, and the finality of appellate decisions. Yet, the case of In re Estate of Jetter, 590 N.W.2d 254 (1999) decided by the South Dakota Supreme Court in 1999, is a lesson in probate law, weaving together principles of evidence, statutory construction, and the “law of the case” doctrine. It is a story of two bachelor brothers, a will gone awry, and a legal battle that hinged on a legal document from 1922.
The Facts: A Simple Will and an Unforeseen Contingency
Robert G. Jetter and his brother Martin were lifelong bachelors who worked their farm and ranch together in Haakon County. In 1981, seeking to ensure the other was provided for, Robert had a simple will drafted. Its core provision was straightforward: he left his entire estate to Martin. A year later, Martin executed a nearly identical will, leaving everything to Robert. However, the will contained a third provision, a boilerplate “disinheritance clause” that would become the epicenter of a legal battle. The clause stated:
“I have intentionally omitted all of my heirs and all other persons whomsoever, who are not specifically mentioned herein, and I hereby generally and specifically disinherit each and all persons whomsoever claiming to be my heirs-at-law and each and all persons whomsoever who, if I died intestate, would be entitled to any part of my estate except as those herein provided for.”
Martin passed away in 1990. Tragically, Robert was incompetent at the time and thus unable to update his will. When Robert died in 1996, his 1981 will was admitted to probate. The central problem was immediately apparent: the sole beneficiary, Martin, had predeceased him. The will contained no residuary clause to handle this scenario. This failure triggered a petition to determine heirship and set the stage for a multi-party contest.
Three groups emerged:
1. The State of South Dakota: arguing that the disinheritance clause was effective and, with no living beneficiary, the entire estate should escheat (pass) to the state.
2. The Schwab Heirs: cousins of Robert claiming through his mother.
3. The Jetter Heirs: individuals claiming to be the nieces and nephews of Robert through a purported half-brother, John Carl Jetter (“Johnnie”).
The circuit court ruled that the disinheritance clause was ineffective at actually disposing of property and was merely intended to prevent claims from pretermitted heirs (those who would typically expect to be in a will). The court denied the state’s escheat claim and directed that the estate be distributed via intestate succession. The state appealed.
This first appeal (Jetter I) resulted in the South Dakota Supreme Court affirming the circuit court’s decision. The high court agreed that Clause III was a “precautionary recitation” against pretermitted heir claims, not a valid disposition. The estate was to pass to Robert’s intestate heirs. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the circuit court to finally determine who those heirs were.
On remand, a fourth group appeared: the German Heirs, cousins from Germany claiming through Robert’s father, who had not been notified of the prior proceedings. They, along with the Schwab heirs, now argued two key points: first, that Johnnie was not truly Robert’s half-brother, and second, that even if he was, the extrinsic evidence showed Robert intended Clause III to disinherit his half-brother’s line.
The Evidence: A 1922 Steamship Passenger Manifest and the Acknowledgment of a Son
The Jetter heirs’ claim to being intestate successors rested entirely on proving that Johnnie was Robert’s half-brother. Their key piece of evidence was extraordinary: a “Sworn Statement Submitted by Relative of Arriving Passengers” dated May 6, 1922.
This steamship passenger document was created when Johnnie immigrated to the United States from Germany. In it, the man alleged to be his father—who had immigrated earlier—acknowledged Johnnie as his son before a notary public. The Jetter heirs offered this document under SDCL 29A–2–114, a statute that allows paternity to be established by a father’s written acknowledgment during the child’s lifetime.
The opposing heirs challenged the document’s authenticity and purpose, suggesting it might have been executed post-World War I simply to facilitate Johnnie’s passage to America, not to formally establish paternity. The circuit court, however, found it to be authentic based on its age, notarial acknowledgment, the similarity of the signature to other known specimens, and the fact it was found among Johnnie’s personal effects.
Crucially, the court cited Moen v. Moen (1902), which instructed that such acknowledgments should be “liberally construed with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice.” The statute required no specific intent for the acknowledgment to be used in establishing paternity; the mere fact of the acknowledgment was sufficient.
The South Dakota Supreme Court, applying a “clearly erroneous” standard to these factual findings, upheld the circuit court’s determination. It could not say the lower court’s conclusion was a mistake. Johnnie was Robert’s half-brother, making his children—the Jetter heirs—Robert’s nieces and nephews and valid intestate heirs.
The Law of the Case: Foreclosing a Relitigation of Intent
The second and more complex issue was whether the German heirs and Schwab heirs could relitigate the meaning and effect of Clause III of the will. They argued that new extrinsic evidence from a friend of Robert’s showed he specifically intended to disinherit the Jetter heirs. The Supreme Court shut this down using the doctrine of the law of the case.
This doctrine is a discretionary policy where courts “generally refuse to reconsider a matter which has already been decided in earlier stages of the litigation.” As the court outlined, its utility is fivefold:
1. To protect the settled expectations of the parties.
2. To ensure uniformity of decisions.
3. To maintain consistency during a single case.
4. To effectuate the proper and streamlined administration of justice.
5. To bring litigation to an end.
The court acknowledged the doctrine is not a “rigid rule” and can be set aside if a prior decision is “palpably erroneous” or if new, substantially different evidence emerges. However, neither condition was met here.
First, the German heirs argued that as new parties, they should not be bound by the Jetter I decision. The court disagreed, finding their interests were “exactly aligned” with the Schwab heirs who were party to the first appeal. Both groups were cousins of the same degree of consanguinity and stood to inherit equally if the Jetter heirs were disqualified. Citing federal precedent (Dismuke v. Browner, Zdanok v. Glidden Co.), the court reasoned that the doctrine can apply to new parties when the issue is identical and the party against whom it is invoked (the estate, represented by the same opposing heirs) was fully heard the first time.
Second, the court found the proffered “new evidence” was not substantially different. The witness’s affidavit suggested Robert wanted to disinherit the Jetter heirs, but his actual testimony at the hearing revealed no discussion about what would happen if Martin predeceased Robert. The witness confirmed the will was meant to be temporary. This testimony did not alter the fundamental conclusion from Jetter I: the will was ambiguous, Clause III was ineffective as a disposition, and the estate passed by intestacy because the sole beneficiary predeceased the testator. The burden was on the heirs to show materially different facts, and they failed.
The court’s final word was definitive: “When a case is retried under a rule we dictate on appeal, that rule becomes the law of the case.” To rule otherwise would be to overrule Jetter I, and the court saw no “manifest injustice” in allowing its prior, carefully reasoned decision to stand.
Key Legal Principles from Estate of Jetter
In re Estate of Jetter is more than a quirky tale from the prairie; it is a significant legal precedent. It demonstrates:
• The Power of Documentary Evidence: A humble administrative document, over 75 years old, was deemed sufficient to establish a familial relationship critical to a million-dollar estate, showcasing how courts can use historical records to “promote justice.”
• The Limits of “Magic Words” in Wills: The case serves as a stark warning to estate planners. Boilerplate disinheritance clauses are not a substitute for careful, contingency-based planning. A will must effectively dispose of property, not just list who doesn’t get it.
• The Finality of Appellate Review: The “law of the case” doctrine is a crucial procedural gatekeeper. It ensures that once an appellate court decides a core legal issue, the parties cannot endlessly relitigate it simply by adding new parties or slightly repackaging the same evidence. It provides the judicial system with finality and efficiency.
The case closes the book on the Jetter brothers’ story. Their intention to care for each other was clear, but their failure to plan for the unexpected unleashed a decade of litigation. In the end, their property did not go to the state, nor did it solely go to the cousins they knew. It was shared with the children of a half-brother, a family connection kept alive for generations by a single, sworn statement on a ship’s manifest of alien passengers.
Get in touch with the forensic genealogists at All Language Alliance, Inc. to inquire about heir research services, also known as forensic genealogy services and probate genealogy services; to procure your immigrant-ancestors’ immigration and naturalization records; to research your ancestors’ alien passenger arrival records, sometimes called ship passenger lists, or ship manifests, from vessels arriving to the United States from foreign ports. Contact us to request certified translation of alien passenger arrival records and other historical evidentiary documents to prove heirship; to use as evidence in citizenship by descent and in restoration or reinstatement of ancestral citizenship cases.
#alllanguagealliance #intestatesuccesion #passengerlist #shipmanifest #Germanheir #Germantranslationservices #certifiedGermantranslation #genealogyresearch #professionalgenealogist #forensicgenealogist #probategenealogist #heirresearchservices #foreignheir #forensicgenealogy #probategenealogy #intestateheir #intestatesuccession #alienpassengermanifest #alienpassengerlist