Here we go central Wisconsin.  It isn’t fancy, it isn’t particularly funny, but I am hoping to be more regular about my ramblings.  For those of you who may be new to my blog, know that:

1. There is no schedule.
2. There is no theme, other than something loosely related to law.

If there are topics you’d like to know more about, reach out to me and I’ll see what I can do.  In the meantime, I hope you enjoy my first post of 2025.  It is inspired by the current campaign commercials for WI Supreme Court justices.  I thought I would just dig up a 100-year old court decision and give it a twenty-first century review.  This one involves embezzlement, suicide, and fights over life insurance proceeds.  Truelsch v. NW. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 186 Wis 239, 202 N.W. 352 (Wis. 1925).

“Dearest Alice: When this gets to you, I guess I’ll be gone. Please–oh, please–forgive your poor Paul. He stole $4,400 from Miller and can’t pay the bill. God–how this hurts.–It’s awful. My life insurance, $5,500, will pay, I am sure, all right. It’s all paid up and all over one year old–therefore–non-contestable.” 

That was part of the suicide note left by Paul Truelsch, a bookkeeper, before he jumped in front of a train in 1917.  Paul’s letter confesses that he had stolen money from his employer, Walt Miller.  His life insurance was paid up-to-date and would cover the debts. 

Paul’s widow, Alice sued the insurance company for payment.  So did Mr. Miller, arguing that the insurance policies were paid for with money stolen from Miller and should be paid to him.  The insurance company turned the money over to the Court to decide who was entitled to the funds. Today we might wonder why Alice and Miller fought so hard for $5,500.  That money in 1917 would be the equivalent of over $135,500 today.  If you consider the adjustment for 1925 cost of living, it’s worth more than $99,0000 today.   

The first decisionmaker was a “referee” appointed by a local court to sort out the matter.  The referee considered Paul’s letters, Paul’s hand-written work ledgers, and the conclusions of independent accountants who reviewed the books. The referee decided that Paul had taken money as a “trustee” for Miller.  Paul implemented a long-term scheme to steal money from Miller and hide the theft.  By mishandling the money, Miller was entitled to be reimbursed the amount embezzled, $4,477.73.  That decision had to be approved by the county judge.  The judge decided he could not consider the letters, ledgers, and reports.  He then decided there was not enough evidence that Paul had used embezzled funds to buy the insurance, and that Alice was entitled to all of the $5,500.00. The Supreme Court had to resolve several issues, which it did in January 2025.

Could the suicide note from Paul to Alice admitting the embezzlement even be considered?  If you’ve watched law-related shows or movies, you’ve heard lawyers object to “hearsay”.  Hearsay is any statement made out of court.  It includes letters.  Out of court statements are not allowed when being used to prove what is said.  But, like all funny legal rules, there are exceptions to hearsay.  One exception is that statements of people who later die, are admissible if the dead person had special knowledge of the matter and no motive to lie. The letter could be considered.  The Court decided that the letter also was not protected as confidential communication between husband and wife, because Paul asked Alice to share some information with Miller.  

Alice’s attorneys argued about the Wisconsin law which said policies payable to a married woman are her sole and separate property, free from the control, disposition, or claims of her husband and from the claims of his representatives.   However, the Court also considered the referee’s argument about an equitable trust which could work to divest Alice’s right to the money.  It decided that Miller was entitled to a trust on any property gained with that money.  But should the “trust” extend to the entire amount embezzled or only the amounts that likely were used to pay the insurance premiums?  The Court decided,

“We cannot sanction the proposition that a fiduciary may embezzle large sums of money, use some of it in maintaining life insurance, and that the injured party has no remedy except to recover the amount paid for the premiums, which may be only a small fraction of the amount embezzled. It would open too wide a door for the perpetration of the grossest fraud.”

“Don’t hate me too much, Alice.” was included in Paul’s letter.  It took nearly eight years from his death for Alice to get the final decision.  I’m guessing she hated him.