Boehm v. Rohlfs
| Decision Date | 23 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | 44036. |
| Parties | BOEHM v. ROHLFS et al. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Boone County; H. E. Fry, Judge.
This is an action in equity brought by the executor of the estate of Hansen F. Clausen, deceased, in which he asks for a construction of the will of said deceased. Five nieces named as legatees filed a joint answer. George F. Clausen, brother and legatee, defaulted for want of a plea or answer. Maggie Rohlfs, a sister of the testator and life tenant under the will, answered separately, claiming that under the residuary clause, the residuary estate went in equal shares to her and to her brother, George F. Clausen, as intestate property. Ruth Dutter Rohlfs, claiming to be the widow of the remainderman and her infant son, Kenneth Harry Rohlfs, by their guardian, joined in an answer claiming the residue of the estate in fee. The trial court decided that Harry Rohlfs the remainderman, reached his majority by marriage to Ruth Dutter, and that the remainder estate was vested in him subject to the life use to Maggie Rohlfs at the time of his death, and hence passed to his surviving spouse and their infant child, and that the legacies to the five nieces and the one brother were not charges against the real estate. Maggie Rohlfs and the five nieces named as legatees in the will have appealed.
Affirmed.
Mahoney & Mackey, of Boone, and F. V. McManamy, of Eau Claire, Wis., for appellants.
Frank Porter, of Ogden, Wm. H. Frawley, Jr., and A. J. Sutherland both of Eau Claire, Wis., and E. C. Schroeder, of Boone, for appellees.
Henry F. Clausen, a bachelor, a resident of Ogden, Boone county, Iowa, made and executed his last will and testament on the 14th day of October, 1929, and thereafter departed this life on January 10, 1933. His will was duly admitted to probate. On May 6, 1936, the executor brought this action in equity, stating that doubts had arisen as to the ownership of the remainder estate, and the method of distribution of the estate, and asking and praying that said will be construed, and the rights of the parties determined, and each and all of the defendants be required to interplead and submit their respective rights under the will to the court for determination, and that the court make such order in relation to the duties of the executor as to the distribution of the estate as the proper construction of the will requires. The interested parties appeared and answered, as indicated in the statement of the case on the title page of this opinion, and the case was decided as therein indicated.
Omitting the formal parts of the will, it provides:
" 1. I direct that all my just debts and funeral expenses be paid out of my personal property as soon as convenient after my decease.
2. I direct that the executor of my estate, shall, as soon as convenient pay from the cash assets of my estate to my five (5) nieces, Freda, Amy, Anna, Delsie, Luella, the daughters of my sister, Maggie Rohlfs and her husband, Hans Rohlfs, the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) cash, to each of them. And to my brother, George F. Clausen, One Hundred Dollars.
3. I direct that all the remainder of my estate, consisting mainly of my 120 acre farm, described as the North one-half of the Southeast quarter and the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section Twenty-eight, Township Eighty-four, Range Twenty-eight, Amaqua Twp. Boone County, Iowa, and the remainder of such personal assets as there are after having made the above distributions, shall be held intact, and all the income therefrom, after paying taxes and upkeep thereon shall inure for and to the benefit of my sister, Maggie Rohlfs, during her natural life. Then after the death of my sister, Maggie Rohlfs, all of said portion of my estate, including the 120 acres of land above described, held for the benefits of my sister, Maggie Rohlfs, I give and bequeath to my nephew, Harry Rohlfs, the son of my sister Maggie, providing he has reached his majority. Should it occur that both, I and my sister Maggie Rohlfs, pass away, before said Harry Rohlfs, has reached his majority, it is my wish that H. A. Boehm of Ogden, Iowa, the Executor named hereafter, be appointed as his guardian, until he does reach his majority."
H. A. Boehm of Ogden, Iowa, was named as executor.
The decision of this case rests largely on whether Harry Rohlfs, the remainderman, had reached his majority by marriage at the time of his death. Harry Rohlfs was born January 1, 1915, in Minnesota. When he was about one year of age he moved from Minnesota with his parents to the State of Wisconsin, where they have resided ever since. Ruth Dutter was born March 10, 1920. She was a resident of Wisconsin. On September 24, 1934, Harry Rohlfs, who was 19 years of age past, and Ruth Dutter, who was a few months past 14 years of age, were married. It appears that they first applied for a license in the State of Wisconsin, but failing to obtain the same, they went over into the neighboring State of Minnesota, and there obtained a license and were married, and on the same day returned to Wisconsin to live. A child, Kenneth Harry Rohlfs, was afterwards born to them. Ruth Dutter's father was dead and her mother signed a written consent to her marriage. Harry Rohlfs' mother, Maggie Rohlfs, signed a written consent to his marriage. Harry Rohlfs was killed in an automobile accident on November 9, 1935. The evidence shows that after their marriage they immediately began living together and continued to live together as husband and wife until his death.
As stated by the trial court in his written opinion:
In this state the period of minority extends to the age of 21 years, but all minors attain their majority by marriage. Section 10492, Code 1935. However, on this phase of the matter the appellant contends that the marriage of Harry Rohlfs and Ruth Dutter was null and void, and therefore this provision of the Iowa statute with reference to minors reaching their majority by marriage does not apply. In this connection the Wisconsin statutes and the Minnesota statutes bearing on this matter were introduced in evidence. From these we learn that under the Wisconsin law (section 245.02), every male person of 18 years and female of 15 years shall be capable of contracting marriage if otherwise competent. This couple was married in Minnesota, and the Minnesota statute (Mason's Minn.St.1927, § 8563) is similar to the Wisconsin statute, except it provides the female shall be 16 years of age, but may be married at 15 with the consent of the parents and approval of the judge, etc. Among the provisions of the Wisconsin Statutes (section 245.04) is the following: " If any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who is disabled or prohibited from contracting marriage under the laws of this state shall go into another state or country and there contract a marriage prohibited and declared void by the laws of this state, such marriage shall be null and void for all purposes in this state with the same effect as though such prohibited marriage had been entered into in this state." Appellant brings forth this provision, contending that these parties went to the State of Minnesota for the purpose of circumventing the Wisconsin law and intended to and did return to Wisconsin immediately and continued to reside in that state.
The phrase contained in the above statutory provision, " any person * * * who is disabled or prohibited from contracting marriage," is no doubt open to judicial construction with reference to whether or not it applies to persons under the age of statutory consent but otherwise competent. However, as we view the matter, this statute has no application to the situation confronting the court in the instant case. Generally speaking, a marriage valid where made is valid everywhere. There are, of course, some exceptions to this general rule. 5 R.C.L. par. 74, note 15. This rule is recognized in this state. Dudley v. Dudley, 151 Iowa 142, 145, 130 N.W. 785, 32 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1170.The marriage was voidable but not void. Goodwin v. Thompson, 2 G. Greene 329, 333. State ex rel. Scott v. Lowell, 78 Minn. 166, 80 N.W. 877, 46 L.R.A. 440, 79 Am.St.Rep. 358; State v. Cone, 86 Wis. 498, 57 N.W. 50.Our statute, section 10428, provides: " A marriage between a male of sixteen and a female of fourteen years of age is valid; but if either party has not attained the age thus fixed, the marriage will be a nullity or not, at the option of such party, made known at any time before he or she is six months older than the age thus fixed." Void marriages are listed under another section of our Code (section 10445).
This marriage was solemnized in the State of Minnesota and its validity is to be determined by the laws of that state. The Minnesota statute is similar to ours, except the age of consent is for males 18 and females 16 (section 8563 Mason's Minn.St. 1927). In Minnesota prohibited marriages are also listed under another section (section 8564). Furthermore, common-law marriages are recognized in both the State of Iowa, and the State of Minnesota. Le Suer v. Le Suer, 122 Minn. 407, 142 N.W. 593; In re Noser's Estate (Ahneman v. Noser)...
To continue reading
Request your trial