Brooks' Estate, In re

• Decision Date: 10 March 1959
• Docket Number: No. 49670,49670
• Citation: 95 N.W.2d 287,250 Iowa 662
• Parties: In re ESTATE of Rosle BROOKS, Deceased. W. Lawrence OLIVER, Appellant, v. Luther T. GLANTON, Jr., Administrator, Appellee.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 287

95 N.W.2d 287

250 Iowa 662

In re ESTATE of Rosle BROOKS, Deceased.

W. Lawrence OLIVER, Appellant, v. Luther T. GLANTON, Jr., Administrator, Appellee.

No. 49670.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 10, 1959.

W. Lawrence Oliver, Des Moines, for appellant.

Henry T. McKnight, Des Moines, for appellee.

GARRETT, Justice.

Rosie Brooks, a resident of Des Moines, died on December 21, 1957, her husband Alonzo W. Brooks having predeceased her. Luther T. Glanton, Jr. was appointed administrator of her estate. On or about March 14, 1958 W. Lawrence Oliver filed his verified claim against her estate as follows: 'W. Lawrence Oliver, Plaintiff, claims of Luther T. Glanton, Jr., Administrator of the estate of said decedent the sum of One Thousand Ninety-One/Forty Two Cents ($1,091.42) Dollars and interest at the rate of 5 per cent from the 1st day of January, 1954, That the Plaintiff Above Rendered Legal Services to the Deceased, Rosie Brooks and Her Deceased Husband, Alonzo Brooks During Both of Their Lifetimes, Which the Deceased, Rosie Brooks Agreed To Pay Plaintiff For Same As Follows To-wit: Two Trips To Chicago Before Railroad Adjustment Board $300.00. Trial In Federal District Court At Des Moines 350. Preparing and Presenting Appeal to Circuit Court in St. Louis, Missouri, Accompanied By Both Deceased $750.00. Payment of Brief for Railroad Adjustment Board 91.42 Total $1,491.42 That the deceased Rosie Brooks paid Plaintiff the sum of $400.00, the last payment in October, 1957, of $100.00 with promise to pay balance in full in sum of $1,091.42 for legal services as enumerated above as now fully appears by the statement above hereto attached, marked Exhibit 'A' and made a part hereof. Wherefore, Plaintiff asks the allowance of said claim.'

The administrator filed his resistance to the claim alleging it shows on its face that it is within the statute of frauds in that it seeks to hold the estate responsible for the debts and defaults of a third person without the decedent having acknowledged the indebtedness in writing; that the claim is barred by the statute of limitations; that at most the claim could be based only on an open account barred in five years; that the services were rendered in 1947, 1948 and 1949 to Alonzo Brooks, decedent's husband who predeceased her and that the services were not reasonable and necessary family expenses.

Claimant filed his reply to said resistance denying the material allegations thereof and stating that Alonzo Brooks left no estate but transferred all his property during his lifetime to his wife, Rosie Brooks, and that he represented said parties in the transfer.

The district court ordered that the issues thus raised be heard by the referee in probate and on May 29, 1958 the hearing was held. Octave B. Baker testified for claimant that in the latter part of October, 1957, when he came to the home of Rosie Brooks to pay his house rent he heard a conversation between Mrs. Brooks and claimant, W. Lawrence Oliver, who appeared pro se at the hearing.

'Q. And what did you hear Rosie Brooks say and what did you see her do and what did you hear me say and what did you see me do? A. I came to her house to pay our rent and you were there, and you and Mrs. Brooks were in the living room and you was about ready to leave, and I seen you give Mrs. Brooks a receipt. She gave you some money and I did hear her say, 'Mr. Oliver, I intend to pay you every cent that I owe you because I am the one that hired you in the first place.' Now that is all I heard.

'Q. Did you see a receipt being given to her by me? A. Yes, I did.

'Q. Did you see her give me any money? A. No.

'Q. This was the latter part of October, 1957? A. That is right.'

On cross-examination he testified:

'Q. You don't know what she talked about that she owed? A. No, but she did say, 'Mr. Oliver, I intend to pay you every cent', and then, 'I am the one that hired you to start with'.

'Q. Whether she was talking about this claim or another claim the only thing you know is what Mr. Oliver told you. A. Only what I hear.

'Q. But what she was talking about, you don't know? A. No, not exactly. I am just telling you what I heard.'

Claimant testified, 'I am a practicing lawyer in the city of Des Moines and have been for approximately 24 years; * * * During the time * * * I have appeared in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa and appeared in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit at St. Louis, and have also performed other legal services by making two trips to Chicago, as referred to in my claim now on file.'

Exhibits A and B were received in evidence, exhibit A being the court's opinion in the case of Brooks v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company, in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, 177 F.2d 385 and exhibit B being a document connected with the appeal from a decision of the manager of personel of said railroad.

The referee in probate allowed the claim. The administrator filed exceptions, in substance that the claim was for attorney's fees for services rendered decedent's husband; that such services were not within the purview of section 597.14 of the 1954 Code, I.C.A. making certain family expenses chargeable upon the property of both husband and wife; that exhibits A and B should not have been admitted in evidence; that they showed on their face that the services were rendered to decedent's husband and were therefore incompetent and hearsay; that they showed the services were rendered in 1949 and that the claim is now barred by the statute of limitations; that there was no competent testimony to stop the running of the statute; that the services having been rendered for her spouse and not for the decedent, her estate is being called upon to pay the debt of another without her having admitted liability in writing, contrary to the statute of frauds; that the claimant failed to establish that he had a contract with decedent to pay for services rendered her husband; that he failed to show by competent evidence that any services were rendered decedent...