Astrach's Estate, In re

• Decision Date: 27 October 1964
• Citation: 25 Wis.2d 331,130 N.W.2d 878
• Parties: In re ESTATE of John H. ASTRACH, Decd. Sharon ASTRACH, Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF RIPON, Admr. with Will Annexed of the Estate of John H. Astrach, decd., Respondent.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 878

130 N.W.2d 878

25 Wis.2d 331

In re ESTATE of John H. ASTRACH, Decd Sharon ASTRACH, Appellant, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF RIPON, Admr. with Will Annexed of the Estate of John H. Astrach, decd., Respondent.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 27, 1964.

Eugene A. Bitters, Ripon, for appellant.

Clark M. Robertson, H. Maxell Manzer, Ripon, for respondent.

HEFFERNAN, Justice.

The record is replete with evidence of controversy and discord, and unsubstantiated accusations. The Notice of Appeal itself bears testimony to the spirit of acrimony pervading the entire proceedings.

The following quotations from the Notice of Appeal are sufficient to apprise one of the spirit in which these proceedings were conducted:

'Appeal is also taken from the Administrator's whitewash of actions and transactions completed by Oliver Disotel without authority * * *.'

'PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, That Sharon Astrack [sic], a primary beneficiary in the above mentioned estate, hereby appeals to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin

from all rulings, decisions and proceedings of the above mentioned court which were prejudicial and inimical to the best interest of the three beneficiaries in this estate, and especially from the final judgment rendered by the above named court herein and entered on the 30th day of January, 1964, and from the portion thereof wherein the court determined * * *.'

The brief submitted by counsel for the appellant contains numerous assertions that are not supported by the record. Typical are these:

'The corporate fiduciary had little interest in serving the estate beneficiaries * * *.'

'With the appointment of a corporate fiduciary, the interest of the insignificant Astrach grandchildren were lost in the interplay of interests of third parties.'

'* * * the bank resisted all effort of the appellant to be kept informed of offers to purchase * * *.'

'* * * the bank, in fact, represented other interests than the estate, and did everything possible to harass the beneficiaries and kept them from any participation in the probate proceedings with an effort to diminish the entire estate to leave nothing for distribution.'

'* * * the interests of the bank were not those of the estate and its beneficiaries but instead were aligned with the interests of third parties who sought to dispose of all the estate's property to the exclusion of the testator's grandchildren.'

None of these statements have any substantial foundation in the record before the court. They are evidence, however, of the difficulties confronting the attorney and administrator de bonis non.

The brief of appellant's counsel abounds with similar charges of dubious foundation, all or most of which are either irrelevant or have not been documented in a manner that they are properly cognizable by this court.

While the appellant's brief indicates objections made in broadside to all the proceedings in the probate court, it appears that the appeal is directed to the order wherein the court determined:

'It is further adjudged and decreed that all accounts of the administrator on file herein are allowed.'

The appellant in her Notice of Appeal lists some 16 items which she claims were improperly allowed. It should be noted that the Notice of Appeal is the first objection the appellant made to these items. The Statutes, sec. 317.15, provides:

'Any person interested may file objections to any item of the account of the executor or administrator or that property has been omitted which the executor or administrator ought to account for. * * *'

The record also shows that the attorney for the appellant waived notice for the hearing on the fiduciary account at least ten days before the hearing. No objection was filed despite the invitation of the trial judge to counsel for the appellant to do so. Not only does the statute above contemplate formal objections, but the general rule of law requires the filing of objections.

'If a person interested in an estate wishes to contest an account presented for settlement by the executor or administrator, he must make proper objections and take proper exceptions.' 34 C.J.S. Executors and Administrators § 883, p. 1065.

'Objections or exceptions to the personal representative's account must be seasonably made or filed.' 34 C.J.S. Executors and Administrators § 885, p. 1069.

No objections were ever filed and we cannot say that the directionless and amorphous examination of the administrator de bonis non constituted such objections. No...