Estate of Beason, Matter of

• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ABBOTT
• Citation: Estate of Beason, Matter of, 811 P.2d 848, 248 Kan. 803 (Kan. 1991)
• Decision Date: 24 May 1991
• Docket Number: No. 65194,65194
• Parties: In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Macy Virgil BEASON, Deceased. In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Caroline Hearting BEASON, Deceased. Lyman John Benson, Steve Beason, Carroll Wade Beason, Helen Beason Bryant, Muriel Beason Cook, Nixie Beason Koelling, Doris Beason, and David J. Harding, as Guardian ad litem, Appellants. Albert North and Eunice North, Co-Executors, and Albert North, Eunice North, Arliyn North, and Daryl North, Individually, Appellees.

Page 848

811 P.2d 848

248 Kan. 803

In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Macy Virgil BEASON, Deceased In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Caroline Hearting BEASON, Deceased Lyman John Benson, Steve Beason, Carroll Wade Beason, Helen Beason Bryant, Muriel Beason Cook, Nixie Beason Koelling, Doris Beason, and David J Harding, as Guardian ad litem Appellants. Albert North and Eunice North, Co-Executors, and Albert North, Eunice North, Arliyn North, and Daryl North, Individually, Appellees.

No. 65194.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

May 24, 1991.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The filing of an appeal bond pursuant to K.S.A.1990 Supp. 59-2401(b) is not jurisdictional and it may be filed after the appeal is taken on order of the appellate court hearing the appeal. The appeal bond is mandatory, and failure to file the same will result in the appeal being dismissed.

2. When the ultimate question in an estate controversy is whether a quiet title action is a proper remedy, a bond pursuant to K.S.A.1990 Supp. 59-2401(b) is not mandatory, and an appellant has the option either to file a supersedeas bond pursuant to K.S.A.1990 Supp. 60-2103(d) and obtain a stay, or to not file a bond.

3. When estates are still open and the court has not assigned interests in real estate pursuant to the probate code, a quiet title action is not a proper method of eliminating persons who may be entitled to share in estate property and who have not had an opportunity to have their day in court.

4. One who is dismissed from a suit is not bound by a judgment in that suit.

5. Res judicata prevents relitigation of the same claims.

6. Collateral estoppel prevents a second litigation of the same issues between parties or their privies. Collateral estoppel requires: (1) a prior judgment on the merits which determined the rights and liabilities of the parties on the issue based upon ultimate facts as disclosed by the pleadings and judgment; (2) the parties must be the same or in privity; and (3) the issue litigated must have been determined and necessary to support the judgment.

Phillip A. Burdick, of Gernon, Collins & Burdick, Hiawatha, argued the cause and was on the brief, for appellant Lyman John Benson, and David J. Harding, of WaKeeney, argued the cause and was with him on the brief, as guardian ad litem, for the named Beason heirs.

Gary M. Howland, of Deines & Deines, WaKeeney, argued the cause and was on the brief, for co-executors/appellees, and Don C. Staab, of Hays, was with him on the brief, for appellees Norths, individually.

ABBOTT, Justice:

This appeal arises from proceedings involving the estates of Macy Virgil Beason and Caroline Hearting Beason which were consolidated with a quiet title action. The trial court quieted title to the disputed land in favor of Albert and Eunice North, set aside a deed, and determined that a codicil to Caroline Hearting Beason's will would not be admitted to probate.

In order to understand the issues, it is necessary to give background information and the procedural history of what has occurred in the case. Readers are informed that this dispute is over four sections of land in Trego County owned by Macy and Caroline Beason, which will be referred to in this opinion as Hearting-Beason II (HB II). The dispute is between the North family (who managed the Beasons' farming operation) and nieces and nephews of the Beasons. The original farm and ranch, Hearting-Beason I (HB I), and other assets devised to the Kansas State University Foundation are not in dispute.

Macy Beason and Caroline Hearting Beason were husband and wife. They had no children. They lived in Trego County and, starting with a section inherited from Caroline's parents, they developed a large farm and ranch operation along with other assets. During the last 25 to 30 years of their lives, they had no close family relationships. Since 1981, the ranching on HB I had been done by the North family. The Beasons were pleased with the way that the Norths farmed the land. In July 1987, the Beasons purchased four additional sections of land (HB II) for the purpose of eventually giving it to Albert and Eunice North.

After several revisions, Macy and Caroline executed a will on August 15, 1987, entitled "Joint and Mutual Will," giving HB II to the Norths and giving HB I and all other property to The Kansas State University Foundation, with a life estate reserved for the survivor.

Within half an hour of executing the will, Macy executed a deed to HB II, giving it to himself and Caroline as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common. This deed was not introduced into evidence at any of the proceedings, although it was testified to by one of the drafters of the will and deed. Macy had purchased HB II at public auction and Caroline's name had not been placed on the deed at that time.

A codicil to the will was executed on February 25, 1988, which provided that in the event the Norths predeceased the Beasons, HB II would go to the Norths' sons, Arliyn and Daryl.

Macy Virgil Beason died on August 28, 1988, and shortly thereafter his estate proceedings were opened. At this point, Caroline was 91 and in a hospital in Ransom. Steve Beason and C. Wade Beason (nephews of Macy) removed Caroline from the hospital in Ransom and took her to a hospital in Hays, and then to a series of other hospitals, ending in Kansas City, Missouri. While in Hays, Caroline filed for a voluntary conservatorship, attempting to have Muriel Faith Cook (one of Macy's nieces) appointed as conservator.

Three of Macy's nephews and nieces (Steve Beason, Nixie Koelling, and Muriel Faith Cook) filed an objection to the appointment of the Norths as executors of Macy's estate. At the hearing on the admission of the will to probate on October 7, 1988, these three appeared personally and through an attorney. (Another nephew appeared personally.) The court admitted the will and codicil to probate and made a minor correction to a land description.

The next day, October 8, 1988, Caroline executed a deed for all four sections of HB II to "all nieces and nephews of Mace V. Beason who survive him & all nieces and nephews who survive grantor at the time of her death in equal, undivided shares (per capita)," and granted herself a life estate. Several days later, Caroline executed a power of attorney in favor of C. Wade Beason and Steve Beason. The deed was not recorded until January 10, 1989.

Shortly after this, in an order with the same case number as Macy's probate case, the court executed a restraining order against Macy's nieces and nephews prohibiting them from exercising custody or control over Caroline and directing that she be returned to the hospital in Ransom. After several days of legal maneuvers, a guardian ad litem was appointed for Caroline and an order was issued directing the return of Caroline to the Ransom Hospital.

Also at this point, Caroline executed a codicil to her will naming various nieces and nephews as executors and changing paragraph 3, which originally gave four sections of HB II to the Norths, to leave it to all her nieces and nephews who survived her and to the nieces and nephews of Macy who survived him.

Macy's will was admitted to probate on November 1, 1988. No appeal was taken.

The co-executors of Macy's estate then moved to dismiss from Macy's estate all of Macy's various nieces and nephews who were represented (we cannot tell from the record who they all are), arguing that they were not heirs, devisees, or legatees under K.S.A. 59-2224. At a hearing on the motion, an attorney, Randall Weller, informed the court that he was representing all of Macy's nieces and nephews. Weller admitted that the nieces and nephews were not heirs, legatees, or devisees, and argued they had standing only because there was a question whether the wills were contractual as well as joint and mutual, and that if Caroline were to die, then rulings in Macy's case would be relevant.

The trial court dismissed all of Macy's nephews and nieces on July 20, 1989, finding that they were not heirs, devisees, or legatees and had no standing. No appeal was taken. (See K.S.A.1990 Supp. 59-2401, which permits appeals from determinations that a person is or is not an heir, devisee, or legatee, although normally this determination would be made as a part of a K.S.A.1990 Supp. 59-2249 final decree.)

At the hearing on construction of the will, Caroline was represented by her guardian ad litem. The court found the wills (and codicil of February 25) were contractual in nature, giving the survivor only a life estate in the property passing under the will. The court held that the Beasons did execute a deed on HB II at the same time as they executed the will, but that they did not intend to alter the will. The court also noted that the February 25, 1988, codicil had the effect of republishing the will and "has the legal effect of severing the joint tenancy and terminating the survivorship," citing In re Estate of Rooney, 181 Kan. 1029, 317 P.2d 416 (1957), and Berry v. Berry, 168 Kan. 253, 212 P.2d 283 (1949).

The trial court's ruling was signed by the court on September 18, 1989, and filed September 19, 1989. On September 20, 1989, Caroline died, and her estate was soon opened.

A quiet title suit was filed by the Norths personally and as executors of the estate. The petition was filed under the caption of both Beasons' estates and given the same case numbers. (The trial court granted a motion to consolidate the estate cases for the purposes of the quiet title action.) The petition lists all 34 of Macy's nephews and nieces as parties to be served. The Norths alleged that by virtue of a certain deed (the deed executed by Caroline giving HB II to Macy's and her nieces and nephews), the defendants claimed an interest in the property. The Norths alleged that the trial court's decision in Macy's estate was res judicata and that when Caroline executed the deed she was incompetent...