Bengtson v. Setterberg, 34382.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 34382.,34382. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | BENGTSON et al. v. SETTERBERG et al. |
BENGTSON et al.
v.
SETTERBERG et al.
No. 34382.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Jan. 7, 1949.
Suit under the Declaratory Judgments Act by Carl Siegfried Nathaniel Bengtson and another against Esther Bengtson Setterberg and others to determine rights and interests of the parties under a final decree of distribution of the probate court. From an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for amended findings or a new trial, the plaintiffs appeal.
Order affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
Upon Reargument
1. Under our declaratory judgments act, an action cannot be used to collaterally attack a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, but it may be used to determine whether the court had jurisdiction to enter any judgment at all in the matter involved.
2. Our probate courts are courts of superior jurisdiction, though the jurisdiction is limited to certain specified subjects.
3. Administration of estates by our probate courts are proceedings in rem.
4. The decrees of distribution of our probate courts are binding upon everyone interested in the estate if the decree covers a subject over which the court has jurisdiction.
5. A decree of a probate court in a matter over which it has jurisdiction is not subject to collateral attack.
6. Under the statutes in existence in 1888, the probate court had jurisdiction to assign the fee in the homestead of the decedent by its final decree, and such decree is binding on all persons interested in the estate.
[35 N.W.2d 624]
Appeal from District Court, Lyon County; A. B. Gislason, Judge.
A. R. English, of Tracy, for appellants.
Hall & Forbes, of Marshall, for respondents.
Charles B. Howard, Abbott L. Fletcher and John J. Gleason, all of Minneapolis, J. A. Morrison, of Glencoe, and Wilbur H. Cherry, of Minneapolis, filed briefs as amici curiae in support of the petition for reargument.
Grannis & Grannis and Warren Miller, all of South St. Paul, W. P. Westfall, John Christopherson, Clinton W. Redlund, Gustav C. Axelrod, Smith & Sehm, Orr, Stark & Kidder, Otis, Faricy & Burger, Walter T. Ryan, Fred A. Kueppers, Bundlie, Kelley, Finley & Maun, Cummins & Cummins and Sanborn & Andre, all of St. Paul, Kelly & Le Vander, of South St. Paul, A. J. Newgren, O'Brien, Horn & Stringer, Seymour & O'Connor, Briggs, Gilbert, Morton, Kyle & Macartney, Ulvin & Christensen, William F. Hunt, Calvin Hunt, Todd, deLambert & McCloud, A. F. Soucheray, Jr., Claude Allen, Beldin H. Loftsgaarden, McGuigan & McGuigan, Frank J. Danz, Buchmeier, Nelson & Knapp and Randall, Smith, Blomquist & Krawetz, all of St. Paul, Lewis L. Anderson, of Minneapolis, and Patrick J. Ryan, Stacker & Stacker, Sullivan & Sharood, Schmitt & Schmitt, Paul C. Thomas, Joseph F. Cowern, Silver, Green & Goffstein, J. P. Drews, Barta & Rohleder, Russell M. Carlson, McMeekin & Quinn, and Scott, Burke & Scott, all of St. Paul, Robert M. Crounse, Floyd E. Nelson, J. B. Clarkson, Herbert W. Estrem, M. G. Sundheim, Byron W. McCullagh, Charles B. Howard, Grant L. Martin, Walter U. Hauser, John E. Peters, G. T. Carroll, Gerhard N. Sonnesyn, James D. Bain, H. C. Rowberg, Virgil J. Schabel, Bleecker & Babcock, Lloyd P. Johnson, Horace Van Valkenburg, Harlan B. Strong, Chester Marr, W. A. McManigal, Jr., Harry E. Olsen, Leonard E. Oslund and F. M. Ridgway, all of Minneapolis, O'Neill J. Grathwol, of Excelsior, Wellington Tully, Edmund T. Montgomery, Vincent Johnson, Lauress V. Ackman, Betty W. Washburn, W. L. Hursh, Benjamin Drake, Henry W. Lauderdale, Seth Lundquist, C. Alfred Bergston, Charles W. Root, Robert H. Petzke, and W. L. Lindsten, all of Minneapolis, Frank N. Whitney, of Hopkins, and Victor M. Petersen, C. O. Lundquist, Russell W. Lindquist, Frederick L. Thorson, W. E. Blaisdell, William Thiel, R. G. Patton, C. G. Patton and George Maloney, all of Minneapolis, Charlotte Farrish, A. R. Pfau, III, J. R. Klaseus, Arthur H. Ogle, and C. A. Johnson, all of Mankato, A. E. Haering, of Waconia, Somsen & Somsen, Flor & Reim, and S. P. Gislason, all of New Ulm, McCabe, Gruber, Clure, Donovan & Crassweller, Alex G. McKnight, Hans B. Haroldson, Carl Hammer, G. A. Myles, Arthur W. Roberts, R. Vern Eckman, R. H. Neimeyer, Erling Berg, Thomas J. Doyle and Harry W. Davis, all of Duluth, James G. Mott, V. Hollaren, Hughes & Hughes and Arnold W. Brecht, all of Worthington, and O. J. Anderson, of Buffalo, amici curiae in support of the petition for reargument.
KNUTSON, Justice.
The facts in this case are not in dispute. Carl Gustaf Bengtson died intestate on June 6, 1887. He was survived by his wife, Ellen, and four children, Henning, Esther, Johan, and Carl, ranging in age from two to eight years. Decedent was the owner in fee of a half section of land in Lyon county, the south half of the southwest quarter of which was the family homestead, upon which decedent and his family then and for many years had resided. It was separately and correctly described in the inventory and in the court's final decree dated July 14, 1888. The present litigation arises out of the following portion of the final decree giving to the wife the homestead in fee:
‘* * * That all and singular of the above described real * * * property be
[35 N.W.2d 625]
and the same is hereby Assigned to and vested * * * forever, in the following proportions to wit: To Ellen Bengtson widow the homestead of said deceased * * *,‘ fully describing the same. (Italics supplied.)
As to the rest of the 320-acre farm, the decree correctly determined the respective shares going to the widow and children.
In 1889, Ellen married defendant John W. Carlson. In 1892, she and her husband conveyed the homestead by warranty deed to one Ole J. Miller, who immediately reconveyed it to the husband, said John W. Carlson. Both deeds were duly recorded. Three children were born to them. One died in infancy, and the other two are still living. Two children of the first marriage, Henning and Esther, upon reaching majority, moved away from the farm. Johan continued to live on the old homestead until his death in 1924, when he died intestate without spouse or issue. Ellen continued to reside with her husband on the homestead until her death on July 6, 1945, and there her husband is still residing along with the son Carl, who has at all times lived at the old family home.
On February 23, 1914, all the Bengtson children filed a petition in the probate court to have the final decree in their father's estate corrected in respect to the homestead so that their interests therein might be corrected and determined to be as by applicable law required. The petition recited the facts substantially as we have stated them. On February 20, 1915, that court denied the petition, and no appeal has ever been taken from that order.
The two petitioners here, hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs, brought this suit under the declaratory judgments act to have the rights and interests of the parties determined by the district court. The daughter, defendant Esther Setterberg, has the same interest in the property as each of the plaintiffs. Defendant John W. Carlson claims to be the owner of the entire homestead property by virtue of the deeds referred to. Defendant C. J. Donnelly, as administrator with the will annexed of the estate of Ellen Bengtson Carlson, represents the interests of the deceased Ellen. The trial court found that the final decree of distribution in the elder Bengtson's estate was conclusive on all parties to the cause and that the trial court as such was without jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter in the present proceedings. The present appeal is from an order denying plaintiffs' motion for amended findings or a new trial. Only that part of the order denying a new trial is reviewable.
In its memorandum the trial court aptly stated the issues involved as follows:
‘The issue here presented is whether or not the decree of distribution of the Probate Court can, in effect, be set aside in this action. The Probate Court by its order erroneously in its decree of distribution assigned to the widow of the intestate the homestead in fee when it should have been decreed to her only for life, and by this action the petitioners seek to set aside this decree of the Probate Court, or on the other hand claims that the real estate of the intestate under the laws of descent and distribution vested in the heirs immediately upon the death of the intestate and that the Probate Court had no power to change the descent of such property by its decree.’
1. The first question presented here is whether the issues raised may be determined in an action brought under our declaratory judgments act. If the answer to this question is in the negative, we need go no further.
Our statute, which is the uniform declaratory judgments act, is found in M.S.A. s 555.01 et seq.Section 555.04 reads:
‘Any person interested as or through an executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other fiduciary, creditor, devisee, legatee, heir, next of kin, or cestui que trust, in the administration of a trust, or of the estate of a decedent, an infant, lunatic, or insolvent, may have a declaration of rights or legal relations in respect thereto:
‘(1) To ascertain any class of creditors, devisees, legatees, heirs, next of kin or other; or
‘(2) To direct the executors, administrators, or trustees to do or abstain from doing any particular act in their fiduciary capacity; or
‘(3) To determine any question arising in the administration of the estate or trust,
[35 N.W.2d 626]
including questions of construction of wills and other writings.’
This section does not limit the power of the court to declare a right where such declaration is necessary to determine a controversy or remove an uncertainty. See, s 555.05.
Borchard, Declaratory Judgments (2 ed.) 355, has this to say regarding the power of the court to declare rights based on prior judgments:
‘It is sometimes said that a final judgment cannot be reopened or challenged by a declaratory action, and some...
To continue reading
Request your trial