Haas v. Reimers
| Decision Date | 25 January 1940 |
| Docket Number | 17. |
| Parties | HAAS v. REIMERS et al. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Orphans' Court of Baltimore City; Philip L. Sykes Leo J. Cummings, and Samuel Lasch, Judges.
Proceeding by Marie K. Reimers and others for revocation of letters of administration granted to Charles C. Haas on the estate of Louisa Haas, deceased. From an order revoking the letters the administrator appeals.
Affirmed.
Louis J. Jira, of Baltimore (George W. Cameron, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Webster S. Blades, of Baltimore (Blades & Rosenfeld, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.
Argued before BOND, C.J., and OFFUTT, SLOAN, MITCHELL, JOHNSON, and DELAPLAINE, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order of the Orphans' Court of Baltimore City revoking letters of administration previously granted appellant upon the estate of his deceased mother Louisa Haas. The sole question presented is whether the order was justified under the facts disclosed by the record.
Louisa Haas died December 6, 1936, intestate, leaving personal estate of approximately $4,000, and real estate appraised in excess of $16,000. Her heirs and distributees are the same persons and comprise appellant, a son, his sister, Louisa J. Haas Gensler, and six grandchildren of the decedent, children of John M. Walper, a half brother to appellant and Mrs. Gensler.
The order revoking letters was passed after a petition had been filed by the grandchildren showing their relation to decedent, their interest in the estate, the amount thereof and alleging certain acts of misfeasance on the part of appellant, (a) in not accounting for rental of the property occupied by his decedent in her lifetime, although since her death, he, Mrs. Gensler and the husband of the latter had occupied said premises; (b) that although letters of administration were granted appellant on December 24, 1936, he had from that time on been trifling with the court in delaying final distribution of the personal estate, reference being made to the docket entries of the court from March 30, 1937, and to June 2, 1939, at which time, although previously cited to file his account, he secured a further extension to file a first account three days later and a second account on July 24; (c) that the administrator in delaying distribution of the personal estate had acted largely upon the advice and under the control of Gensler, his brother-in-law, who had some familiarity with legal matters, and both of them were attempting to deprive the petitioners of their interests in the estate by having Mrs. Gensler, appellant's sister, on June 22, 1939, institute suit against the administrator in the Superior Court of Baltimore City for a sum in excess of $10,000 on an alleged claim for nursing and attending to her mother for a period of nineteen and one-half years, beginning June 2, 1907, and ending December 6, 1936, the date of the mother's death; that the suit was unjust and without any merit, but was filed at the instance of Gensler with the connivance of the administrator, and if permitted to remain as administrator of the estate, Haas would not properly defend the suit, but would suffer a judgment to be rendered against the estate, depriving petitioners of their entire interest in the personalty and a substantial portion of their interest in the real estate.
Upon that petition the Orphans' Court passed an order nisi that Haas show cause on or before July 21, 1939, why the prayer of the petition should not be granted, but his answer was not filed until August 11. In that answer he admitted that he, his sister and her husband were occupying the premises in which his mother formerly lived, but stated that at the proper time they would account and pay rent therefor, and although he did not specifically deny that he connived at the suit of his sister, he asserted he was defending it and would defend it faithfully and to the best interests and advantage of all concerned in his mother's estate, and further asserted that the estate had been administered and cared for in a faithful, competent and careful manner.
On June 29, 1907, Mrs. Haas, the decedent, was adjudged an incompetent and her son, Charles C. Haas, was by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial