Blake v. Blake, 7382
| Decision Date | 22 April 1949 |
| Docket Number | 7382 |
| Citation | 205 P.2d 495,69 Idaho 214 |
| Parties | BLAKE v. BLAKE et al |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Second Judicial District, Clearwater County; A. O. Sutton, Judge.
Decree modified and, as modified, affirmed.
J. H Felton and William J. Jones, both of Lewiston, for appellant.
It has been repeatedly held that a receipt is an exception to the general rule that a writing cannot be explained or contradicted by parol. The grossest abuses and fraud would be practiced upon the ignorant and unwary, if receipts were conclusive, and not open to examination. Tobey v. Barber 5 Johns, N.Y., 68, 72, 4 Am.Dec. 326.
E. H Casterlin, of Pocatello, and Ray E. Durham, of Lewiston, for respondent.
James W. Blake died testate August 14, 1931, possessed of separate and community real and personal property, survived by his widow and two adult sons, Bruce and Peter, and two minor sons, John and George, twins, who reached their majority April 17, 1937.
He bequeathed $ 2,000 to Peter and one-half of the residue of his entire estate to his widow, and one-sixth share and share alike to Bruce, John and George; the shares of John and George to be held in trust until they attained the age of 22 years; the income from said trust fund to be used for their support, maintenance and education; nominated his widow and Bruce as executrix and executor and joint trustees with provision for substitution, to serve without bond.
The estate was probated by the executrix and executor in the Probate Court of Clearwater County, decedent's residence and situs of most of the property, and in the Superior Court of Lincoln County, Washington, where additional real and personal property was located.
Peter's legacy was paid to him and his interest and connection with the estate are no longer involved.
July 31, 1933, the Washington Court entered decree of settlement of final account and distribution, distributing the estate property there in accordance with the will, and that the distributive shares of John and George should be held in trust by Mrs. Blake and Bruce as trustees until John and George should arrive at the age of 22 years, and appointed Mrs. Blake and Bruce trustees for the distributive shares of the said minors without bond. The said executors were further ordered and directed to deliver to the distributees their portions of said estate, make return of their proceedings therein to the Court, showing receipts by such distributees of their portions of the estate. No further proceedings in that Court appear in the record.
June 24, 1938, the Probate Court in Clearwater County entered a decree of settlement of final account and distribution, ordering distribution of the property in exact accordance with the will and -- "* * * that upon the filing of receipts showing the payment to the persons entitled thereto, as provided in the said Will, and as above set forth, the said Executrix and the said Executor be discharged from all further liability on account of said trust, and that the said estate be finally closed."
A supplemental decree of distribution to correct a defective description of one piece of real property was filed December 19, 1938, and no further or final order under Section 15-1331, I.C.A., has been filed. McAdoo v. Sayre, 145 Cal. 344, 78 P. 874.
Since there was no showing that the Washington law is different from ours, we must assume that the force and effect of the decree there was the same as the decree in Idaho, under Sections 15-1306 and 15-1307, I.C.A., i. e., not having been appealed from, was final and conclusive as to the respective shares in the estate to which each of the heirs was, under the will, therein determined to be entitled. Coats v. Harris, 9 Idaho 458, at page 468, 75 P. 243.
However, both by statute, Section 15-1307, I.C.A., and decision, such decree is final only as to the determination of each heir's share under the will, not as to any contracts or agreements between the heirs inter sese or with third persons as to the disposition by the heirs of their respective shares. Coats v. Harris, supra; Miller v. Mitcham, 21 Idaho 741, at page 745, 123 P. 141; Estate of Blackinton, 29 Idaho 310, 158 P. 492; Larsen v. Larsen, 44 Idaho 211, at page 216, 256 P. 369; Moyes v. Moyes, 60 Idaho 601, at page 608, 94 P.2d 782.
Beginning with 1941 and culminating in 1944, disputes and differences arose between George, his mother and brothers, Bruce and John, and June 27, 1946, appellant filed a complaint in the District Court of Clearwater County against his mother and brother, Bruce, alleging in substance the history of various transactions involved herein and that the receipt and two deeds hereafter noted, and purportedly signed by him, were in fact forgeries; that he had never signed them and had never received his claimed one-sixth share of the estate, real or personal; the value of certain properties of the estate and transfers made in derogation and disregard of his rights and without his consent; that there was omitted from the inventory and appraisal of the estate property, certain real property described in Exhibit 3 attached to the amended complaint, which although standing in the name of Jessie M. Blake in 1931, was community property; the acquisition, control and expenditure of various sums of money by respondents; their collection and mismanagement of revenues from the estate, etc.; and that demand had been made upon the testamentary trustees for an accounting and surrender of appellant's share of the estate and income therefrom; their refusal to comply; lack of his discovery that respondent, Jessie M. Blake, claimed the property and incomes therefrom adversely to appellant and to the trust, prior to the 22d day of January 1945; and prayed for an accounting, impressment of the trust; that the court decree his interest in the estate and require respondents to pay over and surrender to him such decreed share.
Attached to the complaint were numerous exhibits setting forth the various steps and orders in the probate of the estate, inventories, accounts, etc.
The answer in substance denied the property in Mrs. Blake's name was community property and denied any wrongdoing or mismanagement of their trust by the executrix and executor and testamentary trustees and that a family agreement had been agreed upon thus:
and that each one of the brothers entered into releases and relinquishments to their mother of their shares, in reliance upon the others so doing; in other words a mutual and interdependent consideration flowing among the three. To accomplish the purpose of such agreement, a receipt and two deeds were executed, and -- "That during all of said time Jessie M. Blake and James Bruce Blake have relied upon the said agreement, having reliance upon the truth and veracity of the agreements and representations of the said George B. Blake that his mother was and is to have all of the real estate conveyed to her and all of the cash income from the property of the estate so long as she shall live, depending upon the bounty of the mother to preserve the said estate and give them what is left upon her death, in the meantime to have and to hold the same irrevocably", and that appellant is now estopped by the passage of time and acquiescence in respondents' acts to claim contrary to said agreement, and additional allegations with regard to the interest and disinterest of appellant in various pieces of property, the details whereof are not material in the overall solution of this action, and asserted that the cause was barred by Section 5-204, I.C.A. -- unjustified as will appear from the opinion hereafter.
The widow, Bruce, and John testified that immediately after Mr. Blake's demise, a mutual agreement was entered into by the widow, Bruce, John and George to the effect that the three boys would transfer all of their interests to their mother and that she would have the corpus and income of the entire estate.
August 10, 1936, the executrix and executor gave a deed to one James McCullough for a large amount of real property of the estate. August 12 of the same year, McCullough and his wife reconveyed the property to Mrs. Jessie M. Blake. This transaction was claimed to have been made in furtherance of the asserted family agreement, but it was in violation of Section 15-745, I.C.A., and is of no force or effect.
Conceding that under Section 31-103, I.C.A., a minor may make a contract, which unless disaffirmed as therein provided is valid, a contract must have been made. Appellant cannot be charged with the necessity of disaffirming something which did not exist, or of failing to disaffirm when there never was a valid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunt v. Hunt
... ... And in Blake v. Blake, 69 Idaho 214, 205 P.2d 495, 498, where the respondents were found to be fiduciaries, it ... ...
-
Hall v. Hall, 16981
...between the parties.' In re Estate of Randall, 64 Idaho 629, at page 640, 132 P.2d 763, 768, 135 P.2d 299. And in Blake v. Blake, 69 Idaho 214, 217, 205 P.2d 495, 498, (1949), where the respondents were found to be fiduciaries, it was ' * * * the burden of proof was on respondents to prove ......
-
McNabb v. Brewster
...relationship existing between the parties.' 64 Idaho 629, at page 640, 132 P.2d at page 768. The same rule was announced in Blake v. Blake, 69 Idaho 214, 205 P.2d 495. The rule announced in the second In re Estate of Randall case, and in Blake v. Blake, was quoted and followed in Claunch v.......
-
Berkshire Invs., LLC v. Taylor
...in relief in the form of title to the Linder Road property. Moreover, under Idaho law, a chose in action is an asset. See Blake v. Blake, 69 Idaho 214, 219, 205 P.2d 495, 498 (1949). Here, the current action is an asset that remained in the Trust, so the Disclaimer did not work to terminate......