State ex rel. Ellsworth v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland

• Citation: 147 S.W.2d 131,235 Mo.App. 850
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI AT THE RELATION OF HARRY B. ELLSWORTH, APPELLANT, v. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, A CORPORATION, HARRIETT N. ELLSWORTH AND DOROTHY M. ELLSWORTH, RESPONDENTS
• Decision Date: 06 January 1941
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kansas

147 S.W.2d 131

235 Mo.App. 850

STATE OF MISSOURI AT THE RELATION OF HARRY B. ELLSWORTH, APPELLANT, v. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, A CORPORATION, HARRIETT N. ELLSWORTH AND DOROTHY M. ELLSWORTH, RESPONDENTS

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

January 6, 1941

Appeal from Circuit Court of Jackson County.--Hon. Paul A. Buzard Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

Franklin D. Glore and R. G. Meierhoffer for appellant.

(1) The order of the probate court approving the final settlement and the order discharging her as guardian and curatrix of plaintiff's estate are void because of (a) the probate court and guardian and curatrix are creatures of the statutes and must comply with statutory requirements. Ussery v Haynes, 344 Mo. 530, 127 S.W.2d 410, 410, 416; In re Cordes Estate, 116 S.W.2d 207; In re Taylor's Estate, 5 S.W.2d 457, 461. (b) The guardian and curatrix and the probate court failed to follow the requirements of the statutes in their proceedings. Sec. 430, R. S. 1929 (sec 426, R. S. 1919). (c) The purported final settlement was legally insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the probate court. (d) They failed to comply with statutory procedural requirements. (e) Observance of statutory requirements are necessary to confer jurisdiction to approve a final settlement and make a valid order discharging a guardian and curatrix. Sec. 430, R. S. 1929 (sec. 426, R. S. 1919); Secs. 724, 730, R. S. 1929; The United Cemeteries Co. v. Strother, 342 Mo. 1155, 119 S.W.2d 762, 765; State ex rel. McManus v. Muench, 217 Mo. 124, 117 S.W. 25, 29; Sec. 416, R. S. 1919 (sec. 420, R. S. 1929); 28 C. J., 1212, sec. 369; 15 C. J., 797, sec. 93; State ex rel. Stormfeltz, 72 F.2d 595, 598; Thornton ex rel. Hoster, 61 Mo. 544, 546; Mead v. Bakewell, 8 Mo.App. 549, 553; State ex rel. Calvert v. Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co., 226 Mo.App. 148, 42 S.W.2d 966, 967; State ex rel. Major v. Wood, 233 Mo. 357, 135 S.W. 932, 935. (2) Plaintiff did not by his action and could not waive compliance with the requirements of the statutes and thereby give the probate court jurisdiction to approve the final settlement and enter a judgment discharging Harriett N. Ellsworth as guardian and curatrix of plaintiff's estate. Sec. 426, R. S. 1919 (sec. 430, R. S. 1929); Lukens Steel Co. v. Perkins, 107 F.2d 627, 633; Elsas v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 330 Mo. 596, 50 S.W.2d 130, 133; Kansas City, Mo. v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co., 337 Mo. 913, 87 S.W.2d 195, 205; Sec. 491, R. S. 1919 (sec. 495, R. S. 1929); Dietrich v. Jones, 227 Mo.App. 365, 53 S.W.2d 1059, 1061; Berkshire v. Hoover, 83 Mo.App. 435, 438; Andrews v. Washington Nat. Ins. Co., 93 S.W.2d 1045, 1047. (3) The order of the probate court approving the final settlement and the discharge of Harriett N. Ellsworth as guardian and curatrix was procured by fraud and should be set aside, because: (a) Harriett N. Ellsworth fraudulently suppressed and concealed from her wards and from the court the true condition of her accounts with her wards. (b) The relationship and nature of the guardian's transactions with her wards were such that fraud will be presumed. (c) The guardian owed her wards the duty of advising them of their rights in the premises and failure to do so was fraudulent. Denny v. Guyton, 327 Mo. 1030, 49 S.W.2d 562, 590, 591; Hockenberry v. Bank, 338 Mo. 31, 88 S.W.2d 1031, 1936; Bowers v. Boyd, 105 S.W.2d 59; Sec. 416, R. S. 1919 (sec. 420, R. S. 1929); Fadler v. Gabbert, 333 Mo. 851, 63 S.W.2d 121, 131; Smith v. Smith, 224 F. 1; Scoville v. Brock, 65 A. 577, 580, 581; Flynn v. Colbert, (Mass. Sup.) 146 N.E. 785, 786; Baum v. Hartman, 80 N.E. 711, 226 Ill. 160; Silvey v. Bixley, 112 S.W.2d 75; Loehr v. Starke, 332 Mo. 131, 56 S.W.2d 772, 777. (4) The Statutes of Limitations are not a bar to this action. Sec. 862, R. S. 1929; Bowers v. Boyd, 105 S.W.2d 59, 62; Selle v. Wrigley, 233 Mo.App. 43, 116 S.W.2d 217, 221, 226, 227. (5) Plaintiff is not estopped to bring this action. Scanlon v. Kansas City, 325 Mo. 125, 28 S.W.2d 84, 90; National Match Co. v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 227 Mo.App. 1115, 58 S.W.2d 797, 799; Roth v. Hoffman, 111 S.W.2d 988, 992. (6) This is not a stale claim. (7) Plaintiff is not guilty of laches. Hagan v. Lantry, 89 S.W.2d 552, 529, 338 Mo. 161; Wauer v. Bank of Pendleton, 65 S.W. (2) 167, 171. (8) Plaintiff did not ratify the action of Harriett N. Ellsworth or the action of the probate court. Cross v. Rubey, 206 S.W. 413, 415; National Surety Co. v. State (Ind.), 103 N.E. 105, 108. (9) The expenditures of Harriett N. Ellsworth as guardian and curatrix were unauthorized and should not be allowed. Sec. 414, R. S. 1919 (sec. 418, R. S. 1929); Sec. 398, R. S. 1919 (sec. 402, R. S. 1929); Porterfield v. Farmers Exchange Bank, 327 Mo. 640, 37 S.W.2d 936, 942; Cross v. Rubey, 206 S.W. 413; Ersham v. Lee, 125 A. 621. (10) Because of the admission of incompetent evidence, a new trial should have been granted. State ex rel. Stormfeltz v. Title and Guaranty Ins. Co., 105 F.2d 496, 503. (11) Waiver. Sec. 426, R. S. Mo., 1919 (430 R. S. Mo., 1929); King v. King, 73 Mo.App. 78; In re Ford, 157 Mo.App. 141; Kellar v. O'Neal, 13 La. Ann. 472; Smith v. Vennard, 24 So. 283 (50 La. Ann.); Roberts v. Schultz, 45 Tex. 184; Pierce v. Irish, 31 Me. 254; In re Marrs Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 66. (12) Fraud. Sec. 418, R. S. Mo., 1929 (sec. 414, R. S. 1919). (13) Limitations. Sec. 861, R. S. Mo., 1929; Steffen v. Stahl, 273 S.W. 118, 121; Monmouth College v. Dockery, 241 Mo. 522, 145 S.W. 785, 793. (14) Laches. Stevenson v. Smith, 189 Mo. 447, 88 S.W. 86, 92; Greenup v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (Ky.), 167 S.W. 910. (15) Ratification. Anderson v. Middle States Utilities Co., 98 S.W.2d 163.

Joseph K. Owens for Harriet N. Ellsworth and Dorothy M. Ellsworth.

P. E. Reeder and George J. Winger for Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland.

Winger, Reeder & Barker of counsel.

(1) The requirements of sec. 430, R. S. Mo., 1929 (sec. 426, R. S Mo., 1929), as to notice and exhibition of the account to the ward prior to the guardian's final settlement and discharge, may be waived and were waived in this case. (a) The probate court has jurisdiction of the subject-matter--i. e., the guardianship proceedings--and the discharge of the guardian. Chap. I, Art. 16, R. S. Mo., 1929; King v. King, 73 Mo.App. 78, 83; In re Ford, 157 Mo.App. 141. (b) The statute (sec. 430, R. S. Mo., 1929, sec. 426, R. S. Mo., 1919) merely provides a mode of giving notice to the ward and obtaining jurisdiction over his person for the purpose of approving the final settlement of a guardian and discharging the guardian. By executing the written waiver in evidence, appearing in the probate court at the time of entry of judgment of discharge, by stating that he had examined the guardian's account and was satisfied therewith and requesting his guardian's discharge, the ward waived the requirement of the statute. Sec. 724, R. S. Mo., 1929; 50 C. J., sec. 17, p. 447; 4 C. J., sec. 40, p. 1349; 15 C. J., sec. 431, p. 1019; 28 C. J., sec. 381, pp. 1219, 1220; Kellar v. O'Neal, 13 La. Ann. 472; Roberts v. Schultz, 45 Tex. 184; Pierce v. Irish, 31 Me. 263; Marr's Appeal, 78 Pa. St. 66; Sec. 430, R. S. Mo., 1929; In re Ford, 157 Mo.App. 141, 156. (2) Since the requirements of the statute may be and were waived, there must have been fraud in the procurement of the judgment of discharge before the plaintiff can recover, but there was no fraud proved and none is properly pleaded. (a) There was no concealment or misrepresentation by the guardian at the time of the entry of the judgment of discharge or any other time. State v. American Surety Co. of New York (Mo. App.), 104 S.W.2d 755. (b) The items complained of were not fraudulent, but are at most merely erroneous allowances which would not justify the setting aside of the final settlement and order of discharge in a separate action after the time for appeal had elapsed. Cooper v. Duncan, 58 Mo.App. 5; Sheetz v. Kirtly, 62 Mo. 417; Phillips v. Broughton, 30 Mo.App. 148; (3) The Statute of Limitations (sec. 862, R. S. Mo., 1929) has run against the cause of action alleged in count one. (a) The statute began to run at the ward's majority, or from final settlement; and has run from either date. Sec. 862, R. S. Mo., 1929; State ex rel. John E. Coleman v. Samuel Willi, 46 Mo. 236; State ex rel. Yoeman v. Hoshaw, 86 Mo. 193; State ex rel. v. Miller, 44 Mo.App. 118; Keeton's Heirs v. Keeton's Administrator, 20 Mo. 530; Hyatt v. Wolfe, 22 Mo.App. 191; Shelby County v. Bragg, 135 Mo. 291; Heisler v. Clymer, 179 Mo.App. 110; Scott & Bowker et al. v. Boswell, 136 Mo.App. 601; Brown v. Irving-Pitt Mfg. Co., 316 Mo. 1023; Callan v. Callan, 175 Mo. 346; Smith v. Settle, 128 Mo.App. 379; Johnson v. United Rys., 243 Mo. 278; Bent v. Priest, 86 Mo. 475; Obermeyer v. Kirshner, 225 Mo.App. 734. (b) There is no excuse pleaded or proved for failure to discover the alleged fraud within five years. See authorities cited under 1 above. (4) The plaintiff's claim is stale and barred by laches. Greenup v. U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co. (Ky.), 167 S.W. 910. (5) Plaintiff by his conduct has ratified the acts of his guardian, and is estopped to assert any claim against her and her surety at this time. Anderson v. Middle States Utilities Co., 98 S.W.2d 163; Mechem on Agency (2 Ed.), sec. 453, p. 334. (6) Plaintiff's petition does not state a cause of action. See authorities cited under Points 2 and 3. (7) Concerning plaintiff's authorities. (a) Authorities in regard to jurisdiction of the court and waiver of notice by the ward. State ex rel. v. Hoster, 61 Mo. 544; Mead v. Bakewell, 8 Mo.App. 549; May v. May, 189 Mo. 485; State ex rel. Calvert v. Detroit Fid. & Surety Co. (Mo. App.), 42 S.W.2d 966; Berkshire v. Hover, 83 Mo.App. 435;...